Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Lowestoft Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATUTORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. THORNE: 6.
asked the Minister of labour whether he can now state the name of the chairman and the names of the other members of the statutory comitee under Part I of the Unemployment Act; and what salary the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the other members of the committee are to receive?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr Oliver Stanley): I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce the constitution of the statutory committee, but I will make the announcement as soon as I can.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE (GRANTS)

Mr. BATEY: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of money vated by theis House for the National Council of Social Service; the amount spent by them; and where it was spent?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

following is the reply.

The Estimates for the Ministry of Labour have loboured have included the following pro-
vision for grants to the National Council of Social Service:

Financial Year.
…
…
…
£


1932
…
…
…
10,000


1933
…
…
…
25,000


1934
…
…
…
40,000

The Estimate for 1934 has not yet been voted by the House, though it was considered in Committee of Supply on 21st June, 1934.

In 1932, expenditure was not incurred so rapidly as had been anticipated, and the grant made in that year only amounted to £1,694. The grant made in respect of 1933 was approximately equal to the provision in the Estimates for that year. The amount paid to the Council up to 2nd July, 1934, in respect of the Government grant for the current financial year is approximately £8,400. The grants to the council, which are subject to the condition that the money shall at least be equated by funds raised from voluntary sources, are for the purpose of (a) strengthening the central organisation of certain national bodies other than the National Council itself, and of certain regional bodies, and (b) assisting schemes of occupation for unemployed persons. The assistance normally is limited to schemes in areas suffering from severe and prolonged unemployment.

Further details are given in the reports of the council, and with the permission of the hon. Member, I will send him a copy of the report for 1933, which will be available next week.

CLAIMS AND APPEALS.

Mr. THORNE: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the organisations that are recognised by the court of referees and the umpires to select the person or persons to put the case for the workers before referees or the umpire?

Mr. STANLEY: There is no list of recognised organisations for this purpose. A claimant for benefit may select any person, not being counsel or a solicitor, to represent him before the court of referees, and an association of employed persons, of which a claimant is a member, has a right of appearance before the court if the claim has been made in accordance with an arrangement made with that association under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. An appeal to the umpire may be made by an association
of employed persons on behalf of a member, and it rests with the umpire to decide whether a particular organization is such as association.

Mr. THORNE: Do I understand that all those who appear before the courts of referees or the umpire must be members of organisations recognised by the Minister?

Mr. STANLEY: Oh no, Sir.

Mr. THORNE: Then does it mean that anybody, whether he belongs to an organisation or not, can appear before the courts of referees and the umpire?

Unemployed persons on the registers of the Wigan Employment
Exchange (including Wigan Juvenile Employment Bureau).


date.
Men aged 18 and over.
Boys aged 14 and under 18.
Women aged 18 and over.
Girls aged 14 and under 18.
Total.


24th March, 1930—







Wholly unemployed
4,475
86
2,080
48
6,689


Temporarily stopped
1,850
117
2,255
187
4,409


Total
6,325
203
4,335
235
11,098


23rd March, 1931—







Wholly unemployed
6,616
175
2,146
175
9,112


Temporarily stopped
1,257
78
1,601
120
3,056


Total
7,873
253
3,747
295
12,168


21st March, 1932—







Wholly unemployed
7,575
145
1,020
108
8,848


Temporarily stopped
1.261
65
478
47
1,851


Total
8,836
210
1,498
155
10,699


20th March, 1934—







Wholly unemployed—
8,168
227
1,042
119
9,556


Temporarily stopped
2,383
99
2,003
180
4665


Total
10,551
326
3,045
299
14,221


19th March, 1934—







Wholly unemployed
7,936
165
846
115
9,062


Temporarily stopped
1,499
51
929
58
2,537


Total
9,435
216
1,775
173
11,599

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the large number of women who will be affected by the working of the Unemployment Assistant Board, he will ensure that a due proportion of the higher con-

Mr. STANLEY: Any individual not acting as a solicitor or counsel can appear before a court of referees and any individual can appear before the umpire if the applicant is himself entitled to appeal.

WIGAN.

Mr. PARKINSON: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons totally unemployed and partially unemployed in Wigan for the years 1930, 193], 1932 and 1933, ending on 31st March, giving separate figures for men and women?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

trolling and executive posts in the Department are filled by the appointment of women?

Mr. STANLEY: The appointment of staff is a matter for the board. I have no doubt that they have this point fully in mind.

EXCHANGE GROUPING SYSTEM (EBBW VALE).

Mr. BANFIELD: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, under the scheme for grouping Employment Exchanges for the purpose of removing anomalies in connection with the discharge of temporary staffs, the exchange at Ebbw Vale has not been grouped with any other parent exchange, and that, as a consequence, junior staffs in neighbouring exchanges have been given greater opportunities of retention than senior staffs at Ebbw Vale; whether he is aware that the agreement made on the Whitley Council provided for grouping to take place having regard to local travelling facilities, and that certain of the staffs in the neighbouring exchanges actually reside at Ebbw Vale; and whether he is aware that the divisional arrangements to give effect to the agreement reached on the departmental Whitley Council in so far as they involve Ebbw Vale have not been the subject of any discussion with the staffs employed in that exchange, and that there is resentment at this particular arrangement; and whether he will give instructions that the position at this exchange in relation to the grouping system should be reviewed?

Mr. STANLEY: The general principles of these arrangements were agreed upon by the Ministry's Departmental Whitley Council and the local details in Wales were discussed with representatives of the staff associations recognised by the Department as representing exchange staffs. I was not previously aware of any complaint regarding Ebbw Vale, but in view of the hon. Member's question, the position there will be further discussed with these associations.

DISTRESSED AREAS (SURPLUS WORKERS).

Mr. LAWSON: 46.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to state the total number of surplus workers in the respective areas where investigations are being made by the four commissioners; the chief industries in which these workers were employed; and the total population affected?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. Any estimate of the surplus industrial population in any area must depend on so
many hypothetical factors that I should be loth to commit myself to any figure.

Mr. LAWSON: Would the commissioners be able to get those figures? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that one of the reasons of the Minister of Labour for sending out these commissioners was that the data as to surplus population were not up to date?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am quite familiar with that point, and I hope it may be possible, when we get the reports and study them, to get some idea, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, it can only be an idea. I hope we shall have data which will enable us to form an opinion, but to get actual figures is almost impossible.

Mr. LAWSON: Will those data be available to the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not answer that question. The reports have not been received, and it is too early to commit myself as to the course we shall take.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this question, as it is very difficult for the House and the country to deal with the matter unless they get data upon which to work?

Mr. BALDWIN: I quite see that, and when we come down to grapple with the subject, which hitherto has baffled all Governments, we shall have to get sufficient information to enable us to form an opinion.

Mr. BATEY: Do we understand the Lord President to say that the Government have not yet made up their minds as to what they are going to do with the reports? May one ask whether the House is to be given the opportunity of seeing the reports?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered already.

CARMARTHEN.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS (for Dr. JOHN WILLIAMS): 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed in the County of Carmarthen on 30th June of each of the last three years; and the number representing the coal, steel, and tin-plate industries, respectively?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, cir-

Employment Exchanges in the County of Carmarthen.


Date
Number of unemployed persons on the registers.
Numbers of insured persons recorded as unemployed in the under-mentioned industries.


Coalmining.
Iron and Steel.
Tinplate.


27th June, 1932
…
10,947
1,776
1,347
3,961


26th June, 1933
…
8,338
1,733
637
1,986


25th June, 1934
…
8,246
2,386
413
1,578

WALES.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS (for Dr. J. WILLIAMS): 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving ordinary benefit and transitional benefit in the Wales division on the latest available date, as compared with June, 1932, and June, 1933?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Wales Division.


Numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges with claims admitted for unemployment benefit or transitional payments:


Date.
Unemployment Benefit.
Transitional Payments.


27th June, 1932
99,846
105,079


26th June,1933
69,947
120,985


25th June, 1934
67,498
115,457

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons under 21 years of age in the Wales division; the numbers employed in the coal industry and the steel and tinplate industry, respectively; and the number who have been unemployed for a longer period than one year?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

culate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Following is the statement:

The statistics compiled by my Department regarding employment in particular industries relate only to persons, aged 16 to 64 years insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The estimated numbers of insured persons aged 16 and under 21 years in the Wales Division (which includes Monmouthshire) in all industries, and in coal mining, iron and steel and tinplate manufacture, at July, 1933 (the latest date for which figures are at present available) were as shown below:

All Industries
…
…
104,200


Coal Mining
…
…
30,310


Iron and Steel
…
…
2,730


Tinplate
…
…
5,280

At 25th June, 1934, there were 1,705 young persons, under 21 years of age, applying for unemployment benefit or transitional payments in the Wales Division who had been on the registers of Employment Exchanges for 12 months or more. Some of these persons will probably have had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each, during that period. Corresponding figures are not available for separate industries.

POOR LAW (COMMISSIONERS, DURHAM).

Mr. BATEY: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the cost of commissioners and their staff in the County of Durham from their appointment to the latest available date; and whether such cost has been sanctioned by this House?

Mr. STANLEY: The cost of the commissioners and their staff in the County of Durham from their appointment in December, 1932, to 30th June, 1934, is approximately £82,000. Authority for this expenditure is given by Article 7 of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, together with the approval by Parliament of the annual estimates for the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. BATEY: Then were the Estimates Committee wrong when they said that this sum had not been voted by Parliament?

Mr. STANLEY: No, that is not what the Estimates Committee said. They did not question any lack of statutory authority. What they did say was that an opportunity might have been taken to present the matter in a more formal way, and that point will be considered.

Mr. BATEY: Does that mean that we can now have an opportunity of debating it?

Mr. STANLEY: Oh, no, we are considering the future.

Mr. TINKER: Can the Minister say whether the cost of the administration saved the amount which would have been paid if no commissioners had been appointed?

Mr. STANLEY: That is another question.

KING'S CORONATION (TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY).

Colonel GOODMAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the 25th anniversary of Their Majesties' coronation and of the desire of manufacturers to produce articles in commemoration of that event, it is his intention to issue regulations as to the use which can be made in this connection of reproductions of portrait heads of Their Majesties?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): It is not proposed to issue any regulations on the subject.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will there be an official recognition?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I should require notice of that question.

FASCIST MEETING, RICHMOND, SURREY.

Mr. THORNE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the chief inspector of police for Richmond, Surrey, in connection with a meeting of the Richmond branch of the British Union of Fascists; and whether anyone was arrested and what was the charge and the outcome of the case?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has obtained a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who informs him that on the 7th instant a Fascist meeting was held in Heron Court, Richmond, and was followed after an interval of 15 minutes by a Communist meeting. A number of persons were standing in the footway at the corner of Heron Court causing obstruction to foot passengers. The police instructed them to disperse, and one person was arrested and charged with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. He appeared before the justices on the 9th instant when the case was dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the magistrates in question dispute the evidence given by the police; and does it not seem rather strange that the Fascists get off every time and the others get convicted?

STAINFORTH DEMOCRATIC WORKMEN'S CLUB.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 14.
asked the Home Secretary on whose authority a raid was made on the Stainforth Democratic Workmen's Club on 26th June; whether the documents and books have now been returned; and what action, if any, has been taken against the club?

Captain CROOKSHANK: A report on this case has been received from the chief constable. of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The club was entered by the police on the authority of search warrants granted by a magistrate under the Gaming Act, 1845, and the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and proceedings against the club under the latter Act are in contemplation. The documents which were seized, under the authority of the warrant, in the course of the raid, and which I am informed will
be required for the purposes of the proceedings, are still in the possession of the police.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the reply that the charge was one of having fruit machines, or similar machines?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot say anything about the matter as it is sub judice

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNAL AND INFANT MORTALITY, WALES.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 17 and 18.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether

Maternal Mortality, namely, Deaths of women classed to Pregnancy and Childbearing.


—
Wales
Glamorganshire.(Administrative County)


Per 1,000 Live Births.
Per 1,000 Live and Still Births.
Per 1,000 Live Births.
Per 1,000 Live and Still Births.


1926
…
…
…
4.92
—
5.21
—


1930
…
…
…
5.60
5.30
6.34
5.99


1931
…
…
…
5.43
5.13
4.41
4.14


1932
…
…
…
6.26
5.91
8.05
7.58


1933
…
…
…
6.09
5.75
6.86
6.45


NOTE.—As the basis of calculation was altered during the period covered by the Question, figures are given on both bases for the years after the change took place.

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON FOOD (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. TURTON: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation in order to carry out the recommendations of the departmental committee on the composition and description of food?

Sir H. YOUNG: The report of this committee is under consideration, and I

he will give the figures of maternal mortality for Wales for the years 1926., 1930, 1931, 1932 And 1933, and separate figures for Glamorgan for the same period;

(2) the figures of infant mortality for England and Wales for the years 1921, 1926, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933; the figures for Wales for the same period; and separate figures for Glamorganshire for the same years?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): As the answers involve tabular statements, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the statements:

cannot at the present make any statement as to legislation on the subject.

LOCAL AUTHORITY NURSES, WALES.

Sir W. JENKINS: 19.
asked the Minister of Health what number of nurses were employed by local authorities in Wales in 1926, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933; and the number for Glamorgan, separately, for each of the years?

Sir H. YOUNG: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tables containing the

TABLE I


Number of Nurses employed by Local Authorities in Wales and
Glamorgan in each of the years specified.


—
1926.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.


(a) Number of Health Visitors employed by Local Authorities in:







Wales
196
189
199
201
201


Glamorgan
67
67
67
67
67


(b) Number of District Nurses utilized by Local Authorities for health visiting
in:







Wales
279
273
265
272
270


Glamorgan
7
7
7
7
7


(c) Number of Nurses employed in Poor Law
Institutions and General Hospitals in:







Wales
*
*
633
650
743


Glamorgan
*
*
168
174
178


* Figures not available


No complete information is available as to the numbers of nurses employed in Infectious Diseases Hospitals, Mental Hospitals or Mental Deficiency Institutions.


As regards school nurses, the only information which is readily available relates to the 31st March, 1934. The following table shows the position on that date:—

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MEDICAL OFFICERS' REPORTS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board's recommendation last year that the annual reports of school medical officers should be abridged as much as possible holds for the present year; and whether, in view of the valuable nature of these reports, the Department will reconsider its views on the question?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Board have not recommended that the annual reports of school medical officers should be abridged as much as possible. In a memorandum which they issued to local education

required particulars so far they are available.

Following are the tables:

authorities in January last, they stated that where any of the arrangements had been fully described in previous reports and remained unaltered, it would be sufficient to refer to the relevant sections of a previous report. It was pointed out that apart from economy in printing, this would enable fuller information to be given as to any new developments during the year, or as to matters which had been the subject of special investigation.

PROVISION OF MEALS.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can now give the names of the 10 local education authorities which are intending shortly to use their school meals powers under the Education Act, 1921?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Proposals made by the following seven local education authorities have been formally or conditionally approved by the Board: Cannock, Caernarvonshire, East Retford, Hereford (Borough), Llanelly, Loughborough, Staffordshire. A scheme of the Bedford Borough Authority was approved some time ago, but the authority have not yet put it into operation owing to the assistance received from voluntary funds. Two authorities (Chadderton and Worcestershire) were not included in the 190 authorities mentioned in my speech of the 30th May last on the Board's Estimates, as they were not at that time exercising their powers, although they had done so at an earlier date. Their arrangements have been approved.

HOUSING (STATISTICS).

Mr. GARDNER: 20.
asked the Minister of Health what was the number of houses built and under construction at the last convenient date under the Housing Act, 1930; and what additional number of houses is added thereby to the total housing accommodation which the new houses replace?

Sir H. YOUNG: The numbers of new houses completed and under construction under this Act at the 31st March last were 17,569 and 10,512 respectively. The number of houses which had been demolished under this Act at the same date was 19,840.

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMITTEES (SALARIES).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 21.
asked the Minister of Health which insurance committees have now applied for the abandonment of economy cuts in the salaries of their officials; and whether approval has been given to such applications?

Sir H. YOUNG: Thirty-five insurance committees have applied for the complete restoration of the cuts made as an emergency economy in the salaries of their officials. In one case approval has been given. With permission, I will circulate a list of the names of these committees in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular issued to insurance committees following the decision of the Government that one-half
of the economy deduction made in 1931 shall be restored from 1st July. Replies to that circular are now being received, and consent is being given to the restoration of one-half the cuts originally imposed.

Following is the list:

LIST showing names of those Insurance Committees which have applied for the abandonment of economy cuts in salaries:


Berkshire.
Bristol.


Devon.
Burton-on-Trent.


Gloucestershire.
Dewsbury.


Hertfordshire.
Eastbourne.


Huntingdonshire.
Halifax.


Isle of Ely.
Leeds.


London.
Manchester.


Middlesex.
Oldham.


Norfolk.
Portsmouth.


Salop.
Reading.


Suffolk East.
Salford.


Sussex East.
Sheffield.


Sussex West.
Southend-on-Sea.


*Yorkshire East
Southport.


Riding.
South Shields.


Yorkshire West
Stockport.


Riding.
Worcester.


Barnsley.
York.


Birmingham.



*In this case approval has been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE (MEDICAL OFFICER).

Mr. T. SMITH: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet filled the post of medical officer for maternity and child welfare rendered vacant by the resignation of Dame Janet Campbell and, if not, when he proposes to do so?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have placed in charge of the maternity and child welfare work a most experienced woman medical officer, who previously acted as deputy to Dame Janet Campbell. She is directly responsible to the chief medical officer, and receives additional remuneration for her increased responsibilities. An additional woman medical officer will shortly be added to the staff engaged in this important branch of the work of the medical staff.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it a fact that the successor to Dame Janet Campbell has not been given the same
rank as she had; and may I ask whether it is proposed that she shall have such rank?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir, the title of the office is subject to an alteration, which I shall be very glad to explain to my hon. Friend if he requires the information.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of temporary clerks in the employ of his Department, the number of clerks who have been employed by managers of local branch Employment Exchanges, and the number of temporary clerks who are to be established in the reorganisation which is due shortly to take place?

Mr. STANLEY: On 1st July, 1934, 9,359 temporary clerks were employed by the Ministry of Labour, of whom about 2,000 have been engaged on a casual basis for the annual exchange of unemployment books. The branch managers affected by the reorganisation proposals to which the hon. Member presumably refers employ on the work of the Ministry 1,080 full-time clerks who are the private employés of the branch managers and are not included in the figure of 9,359. Subject to efficiency and to the requirements of the work at the date of reorganisation, these clerks will be taken over by the Ministry as temporary clerks.

Mr. GRENFELL: Are any of these men likely to be immediately displaced by the new organisation?

Mr. STANLEY: That will depend on their efficiency and the requirements of the work to be done.

MARRIED WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 24 and 25.
asked the Minister of Health (1) the percentage of married women wage-earners to all married women in England and Wales in 1911, 1921 and 1931;
(2) in what town in England was the highest percentage of married women wage-earners to all married women; and what was that percentage in 1931?

Sir H. YOUNG: With respect to the first question, the percentage of married women "employés" to all married
women in England and Wales was 7.76 in 1921 and 8.91 in 1931. Corresponding figures are not available for 1911. With respect to the second question, figures of married women "employés" are not available by local areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (CANADIAN MOTOR CARS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on the methods adopted by Canadian motor-car manufacturers to fulfil the 50 per cent. content for preference purposes of entry into this country?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As promised on the 28th June, I have written to the hon. Member on this matter.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the manner in which the Canadian Government have carried out the arrangement in regard to the 50 per cent.?

Sir PERCY HURD: As this is an allegation against the Canadian Government made upon the Floor of the House, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer not give the details equal publicity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be very pleased to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the letter which I have written to the hon. Member.

Following is the letter:

"Treasury Chambers,

Whitehall, S.W.

10th July, 1934.

Dear Rhys Davies,

You will remember that in reply to the question which you put to me in the House on the 28th June, about preference on motor cars manufactured in Canada, I said that I was making certain inquiries, on the conclusion of which I would communicate with you.

The position is that under the law motor cars consigned to this country from the British Empire are only admitted to preference if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Customs that not less than.50 per cent. of their value is derived from expenditure of a prescribed kind which has been incurred in the British Empire or the United Kingdom in respect of materials grown or produced or work clone in the British Empire or the United Kingdom. The pre-
scribed expenditure (i.e., the Empire content) is defined by the Board of Trade Regulations. Under these Regulations some of the items mentioned in the first part of your question may properly be included in the Empire content for preference purposes but others may not.

I should explain that the percentage of "Empire content" necessary to qualify for preference in the case of motor cars was increased to its present figure of 50 from 25 as from 1st April, 1933, and whilst it was possible for motor cars which had undergone minor processes (e.g., assembly, upholdstering, etc.) in Canada to qualify under the old requirements, that is hardly possible now. In any case only three of the manufacturers mentioned by your correspondent are exporting Canadian motor cars to this country at the present time, and I may add that only in the case of one particular make, in respect of which the Customs are fully satisfied, is the claim to preference admitted at the time of importation. In all other cases the importer is required to deposit the full duty (or give equivalent bond) pending investigation by the Customs of the title to preference.

You may also be interested to know that the Customs had two men over in Canada last summer looking into these preference claims and that these investigations on the spot are being continued this year.

I return the correspondence which you sent to the Treasury on this subject.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) N. Chamberlain.

R. J. Davies, Esq., M.P."

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardships inflicted on those carrying considerable stocks of artificial silk through the sudden reduction of the excise duty on that commodity; and whether he is prepared to make some concession in order to mitigate that hardship?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Representations have been made to me on this matter, but after careful consideration of the circumstances I do not feel able to make any concession.

LITHUANIA.

Mr. AMERY: 47.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is prepared to give time for the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and other hon. Members on the subject of the trade agreement with Lithuania?—
That this House greatly regrets that the provisions of the trade agreement with Lithuania will, through the operation of
the most-favoured-nation clause, extend by a further six months the restrictions contained in the trade agreement with Denmark on our power to safeguard the British production of butter, bacon, hams, and eggs.

Mr. BALDWIN: In view of the state of public business, I regret that I can hold out no hope of special facilities being granted for this discussion. I would remind my right hon. Friend that opportunities for raising this subject will occur in the normal course of business.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before ratifying the trade agreement with Lithuania, he is prepared to endeavour to arrange that in respect of butter, bacon, ham, and eggs its provisions shall terminate on the same date as the trade agreement with Denmark, namely, 20th June, 1936 instead of on 31st December, 1936?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My right hon. Friend is unable to adopt this suggestion. I would remind my hon. Friend that the agreement with Finland, which contains similar provisions in regard to these commodities, is not due to expire until 23rd November, 1936.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does that mean that the subsidy in respect of milk products will have to be continued for some weeks longer than would otherwise be the case?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend is not quite correct on a technical point in regard to this question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the 31st December later than the 23rd November in most countries?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot discuss the matter within the compass of question and answer, but I could clearly demonstrate to my hon. Friend where he is in error.

CANADA.

Sir P. HURD: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, what tariff and other commercial concessions have been made to Great Britain by Canada since the Anglo-Canadian Trade Agreement?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The import duty has been reduced, or the preference increased, on United Kingdom goods in the case of some 40 items or parts of items in the Canadian Customs Tariff. In addi-
tion, the Excise Tax of 3 per cent. on United Kingdom goods has been reduced to 1½ per cent., and a number of modifications have been made in Canadian Regulations with a view to facilitating the trade of this country with Canada.

NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement on the subject of the new tariff preferences being granted by New Zealand in favour of United Kingdom goods?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: A large number of modifications in the New Zealand Customs Tariff came into force on 10th July. I am not yet fully informed as to the effect of the changes, but I will have a complete statement of them published in the Board of Trade Journal at the earliest possible moment.

GERMAN LOANS.

Mr. DRUMMOND-WOLFF: 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the position of foreign investors resident abroad under the German debt agreement signed on 4th July, 1934, which discriminates between bonds of the German International 5½ per cent. Loan, 1930 (the Young Loan), held by British nationals or foreigners domiciled in Great Britain on the one hand and bonds held by foreign nationals resident abroad on the other, in spite of the fact that these bonds have been publicly issued in London and officially quoted on the London Stock Exchange and nowhere else; and, in view of the adverse effect of such discrimination, what action he proposes to take to maintain the volume of investments from abroad on the London Stock Exchange and the revenue accruing therefrom to His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of bonds of the sterling issues of the Dawes and Young Loans, which were on 15th June, 1934, owned by foreigners resident abroad, was very fully considered during the course of the negotiations. I regret that the German Government were not willing to extend to these bonds the same treatment as that given to bonds owned by British holders, but I do not consider that any further action can usefully be taken by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE (COLONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is contributed annually to the British Exchequer by Bermuda, Cyprus, Ceylon, Mauritius, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong and India in respect of payment for the establishment and upkeep of British forces in these Colonies; and what is he percentage of the total revenue of the respective Governments required to pay these contributions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

On the basis of the anticipated 1934 contributions and the estimated revenue as shown in the Dependencies' Estimates for 1934, the figures in the first six cases are as follow:

Dependency
contribution
Percentage of contribution to revenue



£



Bermuda
3,500
1.0


Cyprus
10,000
1.4


Ceylon
80,000
1.2


Mauritius
37,000
2.1


Straits Settlements.
467,000
14.0


Hong Kong
363,000
15.7

The revenue figure used for the purpose of these calculations is the total revenue of the territory, and includes not only receipts froth taxation but also receipts from productive services, including, in some cases, railways. It should further be pointed out that the revenue figures relate to the colonial financial years, while the figures for contributions relate to the Imperial financial year. The two periods do not necessarily correspond. The voluntary contribution of £58,350 towards the defence of the Empire recently made by the Straits Settlements, has not been included in the above figures.

The position of India is different from that of the Dependencies shown in the above statement, in that the cost of the British Army and Air Force in India is
not borne on Imperial Votes but is paid direct from Indian revenues, subject to a contribution of £1,500,000 a year from Imperial funds. The Government of India pays, in addition, contributions to the Imperial Exchequer in respect of training costs, maintenance of His Majesty's Ships in Indian waters, etc.

FINANCIAL YEAR.

Colonel GOODMAN: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the different dates upon which the year is presumed to end in respect of national finances and, in particular, to the provisions whereby the year is regarded as ending on 5th April in respect of Income Tax, on 24th March in respect of Land Tax, and on 31st March in respect of the revenue and expenditure figures as contained in the Financial Statement; and whether, with a view to simplification, he will consider the selection of one date for the ending of the financial year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this matter and the question of assimilating the ending date of the year of assessment to the ending date of the State's financial year has been considered; but as no real inconvenience arises from the present system, which is due to historical causes, and as any alteration would cause considerable complications, it has been decided that no action in the matter is necessary.

FLOATING DEBT.

Mr. MABANE: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total interest cost of the floating debt for the financial year 1933–34, when the average rate of interest was 12s. 6d. per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total cost was £4,139,174.

MOTOR FUEL (TAXATION).

Mr. MALLALIEU (for Mr. HOLDSWORTH): 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if alcohol distilled from molasses and used as motor fuel is subjected to taxation as such; and, if not, will he state the reason for such exemption?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject to the hon. and gallant Mem-
ber for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on 6th March, and to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on 3rd May.

CROWN LEASES, REGENT STREET(RENTS).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the highest ground rent charged in respect of the recent building leases in Regent Street to a sitting tenant; and what alternative was available to such tenant if he had refused to accept the terms offered by the Crown Lands Department?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The highest ground rent per square foot which was agreed with a sitting tenant was 36s. for an unusually valuable site in Lower Regent Street, extending into Piccadilly Circus. The remainder of the question is hypothetical and I am accordingly afraid I can express no opinion.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a tenant who occupied large ground floor and upper floor space in a Regent Street building was recently offered a tenancy direct from the Crown in the Haymarket at a rent lower than that which could economically be accepted in the Regent Street building, owing to the high ground rent charged by the Crown Lands Department; and whether he will assure the House that this practice will not be continued?

Mr. ELLIOT: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the case of a company who were sub-tenants of accommodation at Nos. 14–16, Regent Street. The tenancy in the Haymarket referred to was not offered direct from the Crown, but was a sub-tenancy granted by the Crown lessees of the Haymarket premises in question, and the commissioners are not aware of the rent charged under the subtenancy. The last part of the question does not arise.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a Crown lessee in Regent Street was recently obliged to let space to the Income Tax Commissioners at a rental of approximately 5s. a square foot; that this rental was determined by a valuation made by Government surveyors; that
such valuation is only half what would be necessary if the building were let at a figure sufficient to cover the ground rental charged by the Crown Lands Department and the cost of the building erected to the Crown's requirements; and whether he will make an inquiry into the circumstances of this case?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that a Crown lessee in Lower Regent Street recently granted a fourth-floor tenancy for the purpose of an Income Tax office at a rental of 5s. a square foot, exclusive of rates, taxes and cleaning, that being the rate offered by the lessee after negotiations between his agents and the Office of Works. The rental was not determined by a valuation made by Government surveyors. In the absence of full information as to the history of the premises since rebuilding, the amount of the expenditure incurred on building and equipment respectively, and the various lettings and the accommodation provided in each case, I can express no opinion on the calculations made in the third part of the question.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it fair that a price should be offered which has been fixed by the Crown Surveyor, and which, if accepted, makes it utterly impossible to let such premises at an economic rent?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have stated that the rent was not determined by a valuation made by the Government Surveyor.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am informed that it was.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WHEAT QUOTA (SHIPS' BISCUITS).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the serious position of the export trade in ships' biscuits, owing to the incidence of the wheat quota; and what steps he proposes to take to help this industry to regain this trade?

Mr. ELLIOT: Representations have been made to me from time to time, by persons concerned with the export trade in ships' biscuits, in favour of refunding quota payments made under the Wheat Act, 1932, on flour used in the manufacture of ships' biscuits which are
subsequently exported. The matter has been given most careful consideration, but it has not so far been found possible to overcome the practical difficulties involved.

Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman's mind finally closed on this matter, or is he prepared to give further consideration to it in order to arrive at some scheme of drawback?

Mr. ELLIOT: I would be very ready to examine any scheme which my hon. Friend brought forward. I know the difficulties.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is it beyond the wit of the Ministry of Agriculture to discover a formula which would define the contents of ships' biscuits?

Mr. ELLIOT: We are very stupid people in Agriculture, and we hope to get some assistance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

IMPORTED CHILLED MEAT.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Lieut.-Colonel TODD): 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how much chilled meat has been imported into this country from Uruguay and Brazil during April and May last; and whether he is aware that this meat competes to a greater extent with the home product than the frozen meat from the
Dominions?

Mr. ELLIOT: The following quantities of chilled beef were imported into the United Kingdom from Uruguay and Brazil in April and May last:

April.
May





Tons.
Tons.


Uruguay
…
…
2,544
2,732


Brazil
…
…
3,393
4,399

In regard to the last part of the question, I regret that I am not in possession of sufficient data to justify me in expressing an opinion on this subject.

MILK MARKETING BOARD ("HOME FARMER").

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the protests by representative associations of periodical and magazine publishers against the publication of the "Home Farmer" by the Milk Marketing Board and if in future his Department, or
organisations set up by it, will refrain from using public funds for the purpose of entering the competitive newspaper and periodical field?

Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am not aware that public funds are being used in the way suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend in the second part of his question.

SALMON FISHERIES, YORKSHIRE.

Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the rivers of the Yorkshire Ouse watershed are potentially salmon-producing, but contain numerous obstructions to the passage of salmon; and whether he will exercise powers under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, or will confer with the conservators of the Yorkshire fishery district to use some of the £3,500 now held by those conservators, to improve and develop the salmon fisheries in this district?

Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the second part, I have no powers, within the district of a Fishery Board, either to carry out works or to require them to be carried out.

Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: Has the Minister any powers under Part II of the Act to watch these questions of salmon fisheries?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have not any powers to deal with works.

ROMBALDS MOOR, YORKSHIRE (ACCESS).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the application made to him to prevent access to Rombalds Moor, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, during the months of April, May, August and September in every year, he will say whether any and, if so, what representations in respect of such application have been made to him by local authorities concerned; and whether, before assenting to such application, he will give full consideration to the fact that the moor is subject to a statutory
right of the public to access for air and exercise which is of benefit to the thickly populated neighbouring districts?

Mr. ELLIOT: An application has been made to me in accordance with Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, to impose certain restrictions on the public rights of access conferred by that Section to Rombalds Moor. I have received no representations of protest, but formal public notice of the application has yet to be given in the locality, and a period of three months is allowed for objections. If any objection of substance is put forward no decision will be reached until a public inquiry has been held at which all persons or authorities interested in the matter will be entitled to be heard. The hon. Member may rest assured that the fullest consideration will be given to all relevant circumstances.

Mr. MALLALIEU: What would the right hon. Gentleman consider an objection of substance? For instance, would it be an objection of substance against closing the moor that the public of the neighbouring districts have a right of access to it, under the Law of Property Act, 1925?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this district is a popular resort, particularly during these months, and will he give the matter further consideration in order that no unreasonable check may be imposed upon the tourists and visitors during that period?

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friends may rest assured that the fullest consideration will be given to all these varied circumstances.

ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Dr. McLEAN: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many revised plans the Ordnance Survey published in 1913 and 1933, respectively; and what number of revised plans it is hoped to publish this year

Mr. ELLIOT: The only comparable figures are those in respect of the 25 inch plans, of which 2,448 were published in 1913 and 680 in 1933. I regret that I cannot say at present what number is likely to be published during the present year.

REGENT'S PARK.

Sir PARK GOFF: 44.
asked the First Commissioner of Works why the general public are still deprived of part of the Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park, by tennis courts used only by relatively few persons; and will he, without depriving the tennis players of their enjoyment, transfer the courts elsewhere to enable a much larger number of the general public to enjoy the gardens as a quiet retreat during the summer months?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer my hon. Friend to the last portion of the reply given on the 5th July to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. G rattan-Doyle).

Sir P. GOFF: 49.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the dissatisfaction expressed about the Regent's Park inner circle gardens and the St. John's Lodge scheme, he will take steps to transfer these national possessions to the Marylebone municipal authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot agree that there is any widespread dissatisfaction with my management of these gardens, and I am unable to entertain my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion.

Sir P. GOFF: Would my right hon. Friend allow the Parks Committee of the London County Council to supervise some of the Inner Circle Gardens?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, certainly not. We are extremely proud of the Royal Parks as they have been maintained in the past, and not only are there no complaints of the way in Which they are managed, but usually there is considerable envy on the part of other authorities.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to send a copy of his answer to the Home Secretary, who, upstairs this morning, thought that local government was better than national government?

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Is it not a fact that residents in the neighbourhood are very well satisfied with the general administration of the Park?

HOUSE OF COMMONS (COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendation contained in paragraph 5 of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts relating to the amendment of Standing Order No. 74; and whether he intends to ask the House to implement that recommendation?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. The Government accept the Committee's recommendation, and an amendment of Standing Order No. 74 will be put down for discussion as soon as opportunity offers.

NATIONAL GALLERY.

Sir P. GOFF: 48.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, with regard to the fireguard strip at the west side of the National Gallery, his Department will divest the strip of the temporary structures and design an architectural screen to hide the present untidy appearance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A scheme somewhat on the lines of that suggested by my hon. and learned Friend has been approved, and will be put in hand shortly. The existing trellis will be removed, and a high wood fence screened by an evergreen hedge will be substituted further back, so as to shut out the back view of the site. The front part of the site will be laid out as lawn.

PALESTINE.

Captain STRICKLAND: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the demand for houses and business premises in Tel Aviv and Haifa is considerably in excess of the supply; what has been the consequent percentage rise in rents; and what steps are being taken to meet the demand for additional labour required in the building trade?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunfiffe-Lister): On the recommendation of a local committee, temporary legislation was enacted in Palestine last April in order to restrict the increase of rents of dwelling-houses in the larger towns. The committee estimated that in Tel-Aviv the average in-
crease demanded in 1934 in the rents of dwellings, as compared with the previous year, was between 40 and 50 per cent. In the case of Haifa the committee did not make an estimate of the increase, but they remarked that rents which had been rather low from the end of 1929 began to rise steeply last July. The Director of Immigration in Palestine is empowered by law to admit persons skilled in certain trades or crafts who possess capital of not less than £250, provided that he is satisfied that the economic capacity of Palestine is such as to allow such persons to be absorbed in the trade or craft which they propose to follow; and I understand that 500 such persons will be admitted in the near future.

Mr. JANNER: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the Palestinian Government's total surplus on 30th April, 1934; and what was the surplus for the year ended 31st March, 1934?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The total surplus of Palestine on the 30th April, 1934, was £2,634,460. The surplus at the 31st March, 1934, was £2,510,932.

Mr. JANNER: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the latest recorded number of men employed on public works in Palestine and how many of these were Jews?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The annual report on Palestine for the year 1933 shows that, during the period from the 1st April to the 31st December, employment in the Public Works Department amounted to 790,065 men days, of which Jewish labour accounted for 68,982 men days. The total spent in wages was £125,615, of which £26,993 was paid to Jewish labour.

Mr. JANNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any particulars as to the present position with regard to labour on public works?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I have given the latest information that I possibly could.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this is one of the fortunate countries where there is no unemployment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would not go quite so far as to say that, but I think it is very fortunate in comparison with many other countries.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Have they ally Fascists in that country?

SCOTLAND (MILK PRICES).

Dr. McLEAN: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the report of the Committee of Investigation for Scotland on the report of the Consumers' Committee with regard to the retail price of milk fixed by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for the summer period; and, if so, what are their conclusions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend has received the report in question. The finding of the Committee is in the following terms:
We do not find the action of the hoard in continuing during the summer months the retail price of 2s. per gallon fixed for the winter period to he unreasonable or against the public interest. On the contrary, we consider that in fixing that price the hoard have acted in a reasonable manner, in a genuine endeavour to reconcile the conflicting interests of the three parties involved—the producer, the distributor and the consumer.

TRANSPORT (ROAD ACCIDENTS, EAST LONDON).

Mr. JANNER: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents, fatal and non-fatal, took place in Whitechapel Road, Mile End Road, and Commercial Road, Stepney, respectively, during 1933; how many of the victims were pedestrians; and what steps are being taken to avoid future accidents there?

Sir GEORGE PENNY (Comptroller of the Household): During the year 1933, there were 14 fatal accidents in White-chapel Road, Mile End Road and Commercial Road, Stepney, involving the death of 10 pedestrians. I am unable to state the number of non-fatal accidents. Light control signals are being installed at a number of junctions in these roads, and at 21 junctions crossing places have been marked on the roadway experimentally, with a view to concentrating pedestrians at the points where it is best for them to cross.

Mr. JANNER: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether any further refuges are going to he provided, and whether the Minister will be prepared to do something with regard to assistance in the form of a grant?

Sir G. PENNY: It is rather difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend, but he will see that the Minister is doing all that he possibly can to try experiments so as to reduce the number of accidents.

Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to be good enough to pay a personal visit to this spot, and see it with his own eyes?

Sir G. PENNY: I rather imagine that he has already done so, but I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to him.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 61.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Lilian Eliza Bennett, who in 1919 was granted a dependant's pension in respect of the loss of her son, Private Edwin Skidmore Bennett, Coldstream Guards, with a view to granting arrears of pension from 1922, from which date until quite recently the mother did not draw her pension because of severe mental illness; and, as this is a clear case where entitlement to pension has been established and neglect to draw the money has been entirely due to the ill-health of the parent brought about by the shock of the loss of her son, will he take steps to have the amount restored to her that she should have drawn?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Pension in this case has been put in issue from the date (5th April last) on which application was made to my Department. I regret that I should have no authority to ante-date payment for the 12 years since the original award ceased, during which no steps were taken by or on behalf of the pensioner either to satisfy the statutory requirements for payment of the pension or to secure its renewal.

BRAZIL (CANTAREIRA COMPANY).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether he will not protest to the Brazilian Government against the continued ill-treatment of British subjects by the action of the interventor and consulting council of the State of Rio de Janeiro regarding the Cantareira Company over a period of 10 years; and will he take suitable steps to prevent the loss of British capital in this undertaking by means of a British import duty on Brazilian fruit landed at United Kingdom ports?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr.Eden): The present position in this matter was explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) on 9th July. The companies concerned are handling this matter direct and no action by His Majesty's Government is for the moment either called for or desired by the companies.

CHINA (BRITISH MAGAZINE).

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the seizure in the post by the Chinese Government of Oriental Affairs, a British magazine published in Shanghai?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. Inquiries on the subject have been made of the Chinese Government who have stated that the principal reasons for the imposition of the ban are first, that the nature and tone as a whole of the articles published in "Oriental Affairs" have been consistently hostile and injurious to the Chinese Government, and secondly, that this magazine has actually been carrying on covert propaganda on behalf.of Manchukuo. Discussions are, however, continuing, and it is hoped that they will result in the achievement of a satisfactory settlement of this case.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman make strong representations to the Chinese Government on the unfortunate effect abroad of suppressing reasoned criticism?

Mr. EDEN: I think friendly representations are probably the most likely way of settling this matter.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to limit their activities to seizing magazines?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us what business will be taken next week and when the Cattle Industry Bill will be available. Has he any statement to make on the programme of business to the end of the Session, and what Orders is it proposed to take tonight in the event of his Motion being carried?

Mr. BALDWIN: On the matter that most exercises the House I am afraid I can give no information to-day, but hope that next week, if the hon. Gentleman will repeat his question, I shall be able to give him the information he desires as to when we hope to conclude the business of this part of the Session. The business for next week will be:
Monday: Committee stage of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) [Money] Resolution, and remaining stages of the Colonial Stock Bill.
Tuesday: Supply (17th Allotted Day), Committee, Department of Mines Vote and Board of Education Vote. Report stage of the Cattle Industry [Money] Resolution.
Wednesday: Supply (18th Allotted Day), Scottish Estimates, Departments of Education and Health.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Friday: Supply (16th Allotted Day, Second Part).
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
The Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill will be in the Vote Office on Wednesday morning. It cannot, of course, be published until the Financial Resolution is approved. With regard to the Motion on the Paper to-day, we are anxious, if possible, to get on with some of the remaining business, and, although the list sounds formidable, there is really, I think, very little debatable matter in the Orders that I should like to take. They are the remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, the Report of the Public Works Loans (Remission of Debt) Money Resolution, and we hope to make further progress with the Bill and the remaining stages of the Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments)
Bill. The Motion on the Paper with regard to the Colonial Stock Bill is merely to rectify a slip that was made last night in not referring the Bill to Committee of the whole House. That is purely formal. There is the Motion relating to the Accounts of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, and, if there is time without keeping the House unduly late, the Second Reading of the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As the Bill dealing with meat cannot be printed until after the Money Resolution is passed, will any White Paper of explanatory memorandum be available, so that we can fully understand and appreciate the significance of the Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Bill is a very short one dealing with one specific point. I fancy that the discussion on the Financial Resolution, for which ample time will be allowed, will give the hon. Member and his friends all the information that they can desire. If there be anything further that he wants and will communicate privately, I will gladly see what can be done, but I think he will find that he will have ample material, and there will be nothing in the Bill which will come as a surprise to him. There are only four Clauses.

Mr. TINKER: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the Mines Vote and the Board of Education Vote on Tuesday? If so, how is the time to be divided?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that that can be arranged through the usual channels. I assume that the Debates are desired, and I think that the question of time is a matter of arrangement.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the statement about the Adjournment or Prorogation, or whatever it may be, will riot be made to Members of the House before next Thursday, or will he make it earlier in the week?

Mr. BALDWIN: I propose to give the information to the House as soon as I get it myself. I hope to be in a position to do it before Thursday, but I cannot state the day.
Motion made, and Question put,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than Business of Supply may be considered before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business

be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 41.

Division No. 334.]
AYES
[3.33 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goff, Sir Park
Patrick, Colin M.


Allen, Sir.J. Sandeman (Liverp'I, W.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Peake, Osbert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pearson, William G.


Allen, William (Stoke on Trent)
Gower, Sir Robert
Petherick, M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Grimston, R. V.
Potter, John


Aske, Slr Robert William
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hales, Harold K.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Bainlel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Harris, Sir Percy
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bernays, Robert
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ray, Sir William


Blindell, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Bossom, A. C.
Hepworth, Joseph
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rickards, George William


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hornby, Frank
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rothschild, James A. de


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Janner, Barnett
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Knight, Holford
Savery, Samuel Servington


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv.,Belfast)


Christle, James Archibald
Law, Sir Alfred
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)


Colman. N. C. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sotheron-Estcourt. Captain T. E.


Cooke, Douglas
Levy, Thomas
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lewis, Oswald
Spencer, Cantain Richard A.


Copeland, Ida
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt. Yon. Lord (Fylde)


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson,Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Stewart, William J.(Belfast. S.)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Mabane, William
Stones, James


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crossley, A. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Curry, A. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Davison, Sir William Henry
Magnay, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maitland, Adam
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Dickie, John P.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Drewe, Cedric
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on.T.)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Martin, Thomas B.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L, (Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, William Shepherd
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Moss, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Munro, Patrick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
White, Henry Graham


Gledhill, Gilbert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Orr Ewing, I. L.



Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Womersley, Sir Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wise, Alfred M.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.


Withers, Sir John James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)



NOES


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Bonfield, John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Groves, Thomas E.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Dabble, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry



Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERRIARD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LEEK) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WYCOMBE AND DIS-TRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STOKE-ON-TRENT) BILL [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICHMOND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords],

Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

WANTAGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,

Mexborough and Swinton Traction (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Colonel Crookshank, Major Harvey, and Sir Frank Sanderson; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Sir Gerald Hurst, and Mr. Thorp.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Bill [Lords]): the Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Janner, Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin, Mr. Milne, Major Milner, Mr. Albert Russell, the Solicitor-General, the Solicitor-General for Scot-and, and Mr. Stevenson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1934.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £99,519, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the De-State of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[Note: £49,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. May I ask your Ruling in order to guide us in this discussion? The Vote before the Committee is Vote 8. Are we entitled on that Vote to raise questions relating, for example, to Palestine and other regions, for which there is a specific Vote?

The CHAIRMAN: No. It is quite clear, and has been ruled over and over again, that when there is only one Vote down on the Order Paper matters which come under another specific Vote cannot he discussed. In this case there are two Colonial Office Votes 8 and 9 but only Vote 8 is down to-day, and only matters relating to that Vote can be discussed, and not matters coming under Vote 9.

3.44 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a preliminary statement and later on deal with what I have no doubt will be the many and varied topics which will be raised during the Debate. I am sure that the Committee will wish to have at the outset some information about the financial position in the Colonies, which cannot be shown on the Vote and which appears in the Estimates of the Colonies. We are to-day able to record that on the financial side there is a marked improvement in the budgetary position of the great majority of the Colonies. For the year 1831–32 this House was asked to give as grants-in-aid to Colonies which could not pay their way, a sum of well over
£1,000,000. In the current year, and taking into account one or two items which are rather in the nature of bookkeeping entries, the grants-in-aid which the House is asked to vote have been reduced from £1,035,000 to £505,000. That is not anything like the full story. Those who are acquainted with Colonial administration will know that it has always been the practice in the Colonies to try and create a reserve fund, carrying forward a surplus from one year to the next, in order to build up a reserve upon which the Colony can draw and avoid asking for grants-in-aid from this House, a policy which, incidentally, was challenged by one right hon. Gentleman the other day. I was rather surprised to find it challenged. It is a fortunate thing for the taxpayers of this country that this practice has prevailed, as otherwise the grants-in-aid would have been incomparably greater than they have been.
It is also worthy of note that a number of Colonies which a few years ago were drawing largely on their reserves in order to balance their budgets have produced, or are this year producing, a balanced budget: Uganda, Zanzibar, the Gold Coast, Mauritius, Gibraltar, Cyprus and Kenya. And the story does not end there, because there are other territories which, although they have not achieved a completely balanced budget, have made improvements in their finances which are at least as creditable as some of those Colonies which have balanced their budgets. Northern Rhodesia has reduced a deficit of £177,000 to an estimated deficit of £39,000. Nigeria, with an actual deficit of £1,330,000 in 1931–32, has reduced it to an estimated deficit of £335,000, a reduction of £1,000,000, and I hope that the end of the year will show a still better position. The Federated Malay States, with a deficit of nearly 11,000,000 dollars in 1932, has reduced it in the present Estimates to an estimate of under 3,000,000 dollars, and again I hope that the actual returns will show further improvement at the end of the year. This is a rather remarkable. achievement, and we must remember that is has been done in a period when some of the most important commodity prices were still falling. If you take the whole of the West Coast of Africa and, indeed, other Colonies which depend principally or to a large extent on oilseeds, ground-
nuts, palm kernels, copra, and on cocoa, you find that in the last two years there has been a continuous fall in prices from what was not even then a high level of prices, and when all this is borne in mind it is a very remarkable achievement that these Colonies can make such a good financial showing.
This result has been achieved in two ways. In the first place, by the exercise of drastic economy in Estimates, in administration by cuts, and in some cases by the imposition of emergency taxation. The Committee, I am sure, would wish me to pay a tribute to the Colonial service for the way in which it has stood up to the difficulties, the cuts in salaries, and deprivations of one kind and another, and the way it has carried on the great services of the administration of health, agriculture And education, with hardly any reduction in efficiency as compared with the times when any amount of expenditure was made. I think we should bear that in mind. It is also due to the, economic policy which has been followed. If we had left a policy of laissez faire to operate in the economic field we should have been just as badly off as if we had not engaged in these drastic economies. We have taken that completely in hand.
Our economic policy, which has helped to produce these results, may be said to be threefold: In the first place the establishment of a preferential market for the Colonies in the Empire and for the Empire in the Colonies; in the second place international agreements, where those could be obtained, which would bring about a balance between production and consumption and raise the deplorably low level of commodity prices; thirdly, efficient production And marketing so that the research which is going on all the time may be available to and applied by the producer, both in growing his crops and in the sale of them. I would add a corollary to that, the establishment of what I might call an intelligence system—to use an Army term—so that the experience which any one colony has got or is obtaining in research stations anywhere may be made available to all, so that information as to world conditions and world markets and the trend of world prices may be available. to Colonial Governments and producers all over the Empire, and they can gain the knowledge on which development can be founded.
For a moment or two let me develop each of those parts of our policy. Since Ottawa not only has a preference to the widest extent been given by this country, but the Dominions and India are according preference to the Colonial Empire as a whole and are receiving preference in Colonial markets. That has meant two things. It has meant, first, a wholly new sense of security for the Colonial producer in regard to his principal crops. Sugar, tea, cocoa, coffee, tobacco, and timber—all these commodities are now securing a firm and preferential market in this country and in most of the Empire. But everyone will admit that one of the dangers of a Colony dependent on a single crop is that, owing to climatic conditions, some natural disaster or even a temporary slump in world prices, that commodity may suffer and the Colony suffer in consequence. It has, therefore, been axiomatic that we should, in Colonies largely dependent on one principal crop, seek to establish an alternative crop. That is an extraordinarily easy thing to say, but a much more difficult thing to persuade people to do. If you are to persuade people to establish a crop you must give them some certainty that there will be a market for it. Crops which are principal crops in one territory may be subsidiary crops in another. Bananas, the great staple in Jamaica, are now developing as subsidiary in Trinidad, in British Honduras and in other parts of the West Indies. Citrus, the basic crop in Palestine, is developing as a very valuable crop in Cyprus.
Then you get wholly new openings which flow from these developments, which make the merchant and dealer look for a source of supply equally good, without any duty upon it. Let me give two or three examples. Essential oils, geranium and sweet-smelling things like lavender; pyrethrum, which makes destructive things for bugs; and so on, were previously drawn almost entirely from foreign countries. Now that there is a preference you have encouraged the producer by encouraging admission into this country. I travelled to Kenya with the partner in a great chemical firm who was going out to East Africa to see whether it would not be good business for him to help to finance stills for essential oil production in East Africa and Zanzibar. Another thing is tanning extract. All over Kenya to-day
you find natives cutting wattle, which has suddenly become profitable to them. Something like £70,000 a year is made by the natives by cutting wattle, which manufacturers in this country have found makes just as good extract as is got from bark imported from foreign countries, now subject to duty.
One more example. Everyone, not least the lady Members of the House, knows how important snake skins have become as an article of attire. Many shoes are made of this rather flamboyant material, and I sincerely hope that the fashion will last. We have been quick to seize upon that fashion. From Nigeria they are now going to adorn the elegant feet of women in this country with the skins of pythons. Indeed, so keen is now the trade in pythons that the Emir of Gwandu on his visit to England. informed me only the other day that he was about to issue an order for a close time to be observed for pythons in the breeding season. You may say that that is a small thing, but it is extraordinarily interesting and important just to think of the link between the industrial market in this country and a far distant province in Nigeria. Those are the kind of things that are really worth while in something more than a material sense. As time goes on in an uncertain world, with restrictions of one kind and another coming up against us, the importance to the Colonies of the United Kingdom market, and to the United Kingdom of the Colonies, will become greater and greater. So much for preference.
Then there is the next factor, agreements in order to get a balanced production and supply and to improve prices. That is enormously important to those Colonies which are dependent upon a particular product. It is very important for this country too, because our whole trade depends on a reasonable price. It makes an enormous difference to the labour employed and to the wages paid, and consequently to the purchasing power of the people. Take one example. Take Ceylon. Even when prices were much lower than they are today, rubber and tea represented three-quarters in value of the exports of Ceylon. What an enormous advantage it is to that country to
have its two great exported products covered by effective schemes!
There are three schemes which are in successful operation and to which I would like to refer. That for tin was first regarded with some scepticism in certain quarters, but, after the first three years, for which it was in force the scheme was unanimously readopted for a further period. Since it is very elastic, increased production can come along to meet increased demand. You have always got to consider the interest of the consumer, and, therefore, you must be able to make your production respond to any market demand. The scheme has put up the price of tin to a remunerative level, and it has kept the price steady, which is an enormously important thing for manufacturers. Any manufacturer in this House will agree that the last thing you want in raw material is for the price to be going up and down. You want a steady price level. The scheme has raised the price and kept it steady and constant.
The tea scheme, which incidentally, we should never have got, I think, but for the restoration of preference, is now working admirably. No consumer has objected. Production has been curtailed, but not largely. It is now, I think, 87½ per cent. of the production in the basic year after having been fixed at 85 per cent. in the initial period, but the difference is that before the scheme came into operation there was cut-throat competition, and every company, even a well-managed company, found it impossible to make profits, that is not so now. Moreover the scheme has meant also, a revenue from Income Tax, it has given increased purchasing power by reason of this payment of dividends and it has helped enormously the people in Ceylon and India as well as the people in this country.
I come to rubber. It has taken a very long time to get an effective scheme. Long negotiations took place first between representatives of the trade in different countries, and then between the Governments. It has taken a long time because we were determined upon two things: first, that we would not go into a scheme which we were not satisfied was comprehensive and covered every country where there were producers, or potential producers. We are satisfied that we have
a scheme administratively possible to work, and elastic in its readiness to respond to increased demand. We were also determined that we must have a, scheme so fully worked out that action could follow immediately upon a decision to take action. Nothing could have been more unfortunate than if it could have been said that we had agreed upon the outline of a scheme, but that we must have three or four months to get it into working order. It would have meant stocks piling up, and by the time the scheme came into operation, an entirely different situation would have arisen We got to the stage when, as the Committee knows, within a few weeks of the decision being announced, the scheme was able to be carried out in all the countries concerned. In that scheme, as the Committee also knows, we have made the interesting innovation of associating with the committee of control which operates the scheme representatives of the great consuming interests in different countries.
If I may go from the larger to the small, I will mention another scheme. It relates to sea island cotton. There are certain industries in the islands of the West Indies, and this is one of them, to whom the existence or non-existence of a market makes an enormous difference. Those islands have got together and agreed upon what I may call a cartel scheme to limit the amount to be put on the market. Associated with them are enterprising firms in the textile trades here who are using this material. I wear it. It is most excellent; I commend it to everybody. It is cool, cheap and silk-like. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not show a sample?"] I might put one in the Library, though I do not know whether it would be in order. What has been done in this case on a small scale is a good example of an arrangement of this kind.
We are proceeding on these lines. We are seeking to improve production and marketing, particularly by natives, in all these Colonies. Improvement in production and improvement in marketing have got to go together, applying the results of research and experience, the aim being to get your native, in the first place, to grow the best type of product, and, having grown it, to assist him to get the best price for it. That is going on everywhere all the time, and many Members
of the House who have toured different Colonies will testify to it. On the production side we have learnt that if you tell a man a thing, he is a little sceptical, but that if he sees it, he will believe it. The work which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) began is going on intensively to-day. He used to lay great stress on the principle that if you are to teach these people, you have to show them, and we now have demonstration farms for the men and what, I think, is equally valuable—the little school plot. Education and agriculture are linked together. It is absolutely fascinating to go about those Colonies and see the thing. Wherever you go you find this happy relationship of education and agriculture.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about Cyprus?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Cyprus, I understand, is out of order.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Surely any British Colony is in order on this Vote?

Mr. AMERY: On this point of Order, may I raise this question? I imagine that the actual affairs of any Colony that come under Vote 9 would not be in order, but the general administration policy of the Colonial Office, I take it, may be touched upon?

Mr. LUNN: May I put this point? Are we not discussing the Colonial Office Estimates, and is not the Minister's salary likely to be under discussion Is it not possible, therefore, for someone to move a reduction, and does not that give the opportunity of raising the whole of the administration of the Colonial Empire by the Colonial Office?

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. R. J. Russell): It has been pointed out to me that we should keep strictly to Vote 8, the Colonial Office Vote, that is, the salaries and other expenses of the Colonial Office, and that that rules out automatically any references to Votes 9 and 10. That being so, any reference to Cyprus and the other Colonies would be out of order.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Would it not be right to say that I should be out of order if I referred to grants-in-aid of Cyprus? The only item in Vote 9 with regard to Cyprus is the grant-in-aid about
which I was going to say nothing. The administration of Cyprus, I think, comes on this Vote. I must admit that I think Palestine comes under a different head.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the position of Cyprus exactly the same? Under Vote 8 we are entitled to discuss the salary of the Secretary of State, but, as I understand from your Ruling, we are ruled out from discussing Nyasaland, Somaliland, British Honduras, Palestine, Trausjordan and other territories mentioned in Vote 9. I do not know why we should be ruled out from discussing Palestine apart from defence. I submit to you that your Ruling merely rules out the actual items in the Vote.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is right. On this Vote for salaries of the Colonial Office all questions of policy arise, whereas under Vote 9 grants-in-aid arise. It would, I think, be quite out of order, as Vote 9 is not on the Paper, to discuss whether there should or should not be this or that grant-in-aid, but I submit that it would not be out of order to discuss whether it is or is not a proper thing in Cyprus to engage in agricultural development.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the Chairman has ruled that the discussion must take place on Vote 8. Where that Vote has reference to the other matters under Votes 9 and 10, then they would be in order, but not otherwise. Palestine, of course, would be out of order.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: But we should be in order, I submit, in discussing the general policy in relation to any territory excepting in so far as that policy involves grants-in-aid, whether military or otherwise, which figure in Vote 9.

Mr. DENMAN: May I point out that in previous years we have been governed very strictly in this matter, and not allowed to raise on the general Vote subjects referred to in the special Vote. It arises more especially under the Home Office, where it has been frequently held to be impossible to raise any question of the police on the salary of the Secretary of State. This is precisely an analogous case. We cannot raise subjects relating to Palestine or Cyprus under the salary of the Secretary of State. The remedy
lies with the Opposition to put down whatever Vote they wish to discuss, and thereby concentrate the Debate wherever they want it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Should we not test it in this way I Suppose Vote 8 had not been put down, but Vote 9 had been, the discussion would be limited to what is under Vote 9. If that were so the only thing we should be allowed to discuss on Vote 9 would be whether there should or should not be grants-in-aid and how they should be used. We should be quite out of order on Vote 9 in discussing matters not relating to grants-in-aid. If other matters relating to say, Cyprus, may not be discussed on this Vote, they may not be discussed at all. In that case I think I may make a reference to Cyprus.
The real problem in Cyprus is the problem of agriculture. Incidentally I should like in passing to refer to the antiquities in the island which we are doing our best to preserve, and to pay a tribute to Lord Mersey and his colleagues and all those who are generously helping in the work of maintaining and restoring these antiquities which are among the most interesting to be found anywhere in the world. But in Cyprus as everywhere else the man we have to look after is the tiller of the soil. There has not been in the past, in Cyprus, for various reasons that decentralisation which was necessary, but we have now made a beginning and decentralisation is taking place. Demonstration farms are being established. Only a few weeks ago a Cypriot came to me and told me that our agricultural policy in Cyprus was the best thing which had been done there for years. The establishment of these demonstration farms in the island will enable the farmers to see the best kinds of crops to grow and the best methods of doing so.
The same kind of thing, I am glad to say, is going on in Malta which again was singularly neglected under a so-called national ministry, in those matters which really concern the people. In Malta absolutely nothing had been done for agriculture, but there has been a change of circumstances and steps are now being taken to deal with the problem. The first thing I did was to get the agricultural adviser to the Colonial Office to go out to Malta and to get down to the agricultural prob-
lems of the island on the spot. He has presented several most excellent recommendations, and with the help of the Colonial Development Fund, and with the approval of the Treasury, we propose to take certain steps. We propose to have a trained Englishman as adviser in agricultural marketing and to establish a fund for the purpose of encouraging the marketing of products in the United Kingdom market. We also propose to establish a Government stock farm and experimental station, in order that the proper breeds of cattle, swine, poultry and so forth may be made available for the people in that island. We further propose to tackle on a larger scale a problem which up to now has only been dealt with by the generosity of an individual Maltese Professor, Sir Themistocles Zammit and some others, and that is the protection of goats against undulant fever infection. That is an enormously important thing in Malta, and when one becomes directly responsible for the government of Malta, one realises that it is vital to the future of the island. Every one is aware that the only way in which to settle it properly is on the lines of trying to find some method of inoculation of the goats. We are going to put that matter in hand at. once and I think that our administration of Malta on those lines will compare not unfavourably with the administration which preceded it.
One finds the same kind of policy as that which I have outlined in reference to Cyprus and Malta going on throughout the whole Colonial Empire. I saw it everywhere in East Africa and it is going on in West Africa also. We see improvement both in the production and the marketing of cocoa, but its most useful development both there and elsewhere—and I allude particularly to West Africa—is in connection with timber. I mentioned this matter a year ago. We are now developing timber production in West Africa. The freedom of these timber imports from the 10 per cent. duty means that timber merchants in this country are extraordinarily keen on getting Empire timber wherever it is suitable. In the past we had the timber, but we did not know the proper methods of cutting it and marketing it. We have had our officers from the Colonies brought home for periods of training with British firms in the proper methods of dealing with timber. They are going hack now
and are already beginning to do admirable work. We are also teaching the native administrations how to use their timber to the best advantage—a lesson which will redound greatly to their financial advantage as well as to the general good.
So it goes on throughout all these territories. The Sultan of Sokoto and the Emirs of Kano and Gwandu, who recently visited this country, told me how they appreciated keenly the value of the improved production and marketing of the very valuable morocco leather, the foundation for which, I understand, is obtained from the red goats of Nigeria. They told me that, acting entirely on their own initiative, they sent for every butcher in their territories and the butchers came up in relays and were taught how to deal with the skins from which the leather is manufactured. The markets are inspected, and if any skin comes into a market in an unsuitable condition, the butcher responsible for it is called up and given an unpleasant quarter of an hour.
Let me take two examples out of many of the policy which we are pursuing, first of improved production and then of improved marketing. The first is the case of coffee in Uganda. I have seen for myself the great improvement which has taken place in production as a result of the natives having learned from our teachers the best methods of dealing with the crop. Incidentally, we have learned something from the natives in connection with the traditional use of elephant grass to prevent erosion. Science to-day has found this method to be most effective and thus we have an interesting example of modern science and an old custom working in together. With the improvement in production, steps have also been taken to organise the marketing through a single Government agency with the object of securing the best price.
The second example which I would give is that of cloves in Zanzibar. That Protectorate is almost dependent upon the clove crop in connection with which there have been losses, almost undoubtedly due to inadequate marketing methods. The clove crop is in demand throughout the world for various purposes. The spice trade requires a very high quality. Java requires a second quality and America requires a lower grade but the tendency
has been for the whole crop to be lumped together and sold at a uniform price which has meant selling at the lowest price. We are now proposing through our Clove Association, to grade the cloves so as to ensure that the best price shall be obtained for the best kind of article, and a very great improvement ought to take place in the returns which the natives realise from this crop. That is our plain duty to the natives. It has been suggested that if we do this we are in some way impinging on the legitimate functions of Indian or native traders. In the first place, as I have said, it is our plain duty. In the second place, what is the function of a trader in that country if not that of a purveyor? He undoubtedly performs a valuable function as a seller of imported commodities and it is to his interest that the purchasing power of the people should be as high as possible. If they are getting an adequate price for their products their purchasing power will go up and therefore, so far from interfering with the proper functions or with the real interests of the trader by developing these marketing schemes, our policy will have a contrary result.
In connection with these policies, I would refer to what I have called the subsidiary provision of intelligence. When I was working out a policy of preference in preparing for the Ottawa Conference, I found that it was absolutely essential to know what each Colony was producing, where it was selling its products, what it was buying and where it was buying, and then to get that information collated on what I may call a commodity basis, so that one could see at once where in the Colonial Empire we were producing any given commodity in greater or less quantity than this country, or the Empire or the world required. Without such information. it was quite impossible to decide upon the markets in which to expect expansion and those in which we would have to look for ultimate contraction. I therefore got out what at Ottawa we called our "Bible" in which all that information was available. I may say that the Dominion representatives found it exceedingly useful in their negotiations with us.
Then it was said to me by Members in this House and by people outside:
"Having done this for your own purposes, would it not be useful to keep it up-to-date and thoroughly comprehensive so that it would be available throughout the Colonies and throughout the Empire, for those connected with administration, traders and others?" That suggestion we have carried out, and the result is this colossal volume which I have here. I have had very little part in its preparation myself. That has been the work of others and it is only the idea for which I can claim credit. But this volume gives for the first time a complete survey of the production of the Colonial Empire and a complete review of the markets in which that production is sold. It also gives full details as to the financial position and structure of the various parts of the Colonial Empire. Now that the work has been started, I propose to have it reviewed in each Colony each year, so that there may be available all the time a complete and up-to-date survey.
I know that various questions will be raised by hon. Members in this Debate which I shall do my best to answer later on, but there is one matter which, I think, it well to refer to now, and that is the Kenya Land Report. We have taken the course of publishing the views of His Majesty's Government with that report which received very careful consideration from the Government here. My colleagues and I went into it with much attention and we thought it would be convenient to publish concurrently with the report the White Paper which is in the hands of hon. Members. That White Paper serves the double purpose of giving what is, I hope, a not inaccurate summary of the more important points in the report and also the decisions of the Government thereon. Everybody in this country and in Kenya owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to this commission. I knew that I was asking them to undertake a pretty large task. I had no idea of the enormous amount of time which the inquiry would occupy if it were to be done with the fullness with which they have done it. They examined no fewer than 736 witnesses, besides many papers and memoranda. Of those witnesses, nearly 500 were natives, and most of them were examined in Baraza so that other natives could hear their evidence and so that the commis-
sion could form an impression of how far the evidence was in conformity with general sentiment and opinion. The members of the commission were highly qualified for their task. The chairman had had high judicial experience, which was an important consideration, and he had also had the unique experience of presiding over a very complicated land inquiry in Southern Rhodesia. Everybody agreed that he was an ideal chairman. Mr. Hemsted was a very experienced provincial commissioner with a great knowledge of the country, and he had given years of his life to the public service. Captain Wilson was a farmer in Kenya, highly respected and a model employer of labour, a man of great ability, soundness of judgment, and kindness of heart.
The commission have presented a unanimous report, and I hope that it is some recompense to them after their great labour to find with what a large measure of appreciation their report has been received in both Kenya and this country. The report divides itself broadly into two parts, the first dealing with the question of land, and the second dealing with all the details of the Native Lands Trust Ordinance. As will be seen from a study of the more than 300 pages of the report which deal with the question of the reserves, the commission examined with meticulous care every claim, historical, legal and equitable, which could be or was advanced and adjudicated upon them; and examined with extraordinary care what are and what are likely to be the economic requirements of the future.
They make recommendations of very large additions to the reserves. They recommend that, to meet what I may call claims as of right, 1,474 square miles should be added. They also recommend that 1,155 square miles should be added to various reserves to meet present or future economic requirements of particular tribes. An interesting recommendation is that other great areas in different parts of Kenya, totalling 939 square miles, should be set aside for native use but should not be allocated to particular tribes. They lay down what I think everyone will admit is the very wise condition, that where land is added to meet future economic requirements, as distinct from the land which is given as compensation for claims as of right, it should be made subject to con-
ditions of economic user. Everybody who has seen the conditions or has read this report and similar reports, must be impressed by the great importance of the condition that where land is added it should be wisely and economically used. The Government approve of these large additions to the reserves. A number of exchanges of land are recommended, but no one here is competent to express an opinion on them, and it will be agreed that it is reasonable they should be gone into in detail by the district and Provincial Commissioners in order to make sure that the detailed exchanges are in every case the most convenient. In saying that this will be done, it must not be understood that I commit myself to all the additions by way of exchange that are recommended. They require detailed investigation on the spot.
In making these great additions, there are two considerations which we must have in mind. In the first place, we could not have had a fairer or more exhaustive inquiry than that which was made by the commissioners who have drawn up this report. In the second place, these recommendations for great additions of land stand as a whole. It would be impracticable in a great settlement of this kind, after the recommendations made by these impartial men, for anyone here, however competent, to say, "I disagree with this or that bit; you ought to have added a little more here or a little less there." Everyone has his own predelictions and there will be plenty of people who will advance criticism of one kind and another about this or that area. The whole object of this inquiry was to get finality and certainty in this matter. I am sure nobody in this Committee would attempt to go into detail and venture to say that he knew better than the Commission. If criticism of that kind be made, it will reopen the whole inquiry and undo the enormous benefit that has been gained from this tremendous piece of work.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the land which is to be added to the reserves have to be bought; if so, how will it be bought?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that a great deal of the land is in the Government's own hands. The Commission recommend that certain pur-
chases should be made. It will be out of order for me to go into those on this Vote, but they are in the White Paper, and the Government will ask the House at some future time to sanction a contribution towards the Carrying out of this report. I did not refer to this point, as I thought I should be out of order on this Vote because a Supplementary Estimate will be required. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may take it that we propose to implement the findings of the Commission and to make these great additions to the reserves, and, where this involves the purchase of land, it will be carried out.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be carried out at our expense, or will there be a loan for which the colony will be responsible?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Part of the expense will fall on the colony. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt read the White Paper—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have not.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was discussing this with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the assumption that he had made himself acquainted with the White Paper. I thought he was touching on a matter which has been in the knowledge of the House for many weeks, but I was wrong. I certainly shall not transgress the Rules of the Committee if I suggest that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should first read the report and then read the White Paper, from which he will gather the financial proposals.
The Commission make what I think is another wise recommendation. It is that the boundaries of the reserves as expanded by these great additions and the boundaries of the European Highlands shall be laid down by Order-in-Council. Frequent anxiety has been expressed that once land is put into a reserve people shall feel certain about it and it shall not be the subject of change. That is fair, and the Government accept wholeheartedly the recommendation made by the Commission that the boundaries as extended in this way shall be confirmed by Order-in-Council, which will give permanent security for the boundaries. I do not want to be committed at this moment to all the details of the amalgamation
of reserves which the Commission recommend. I am sure the Commission are sound in the general principle that the reserves are in compartments which have been too watertight in the past. The boundaries between reserves were laid down in an arbitary manner, and. it is sometimes difficult to find out why they were put where they are. Anyone who reads this report and sees what the Commission says about interpenetration as between one tribe and another—a most desirable thing to encourage—and the development of individual ownership within these tribes, will agree that it is desirable that infiltration and development should not be held up by having these watertight compartments, which do not conform to native desire and development or to the realities on the spot.
I pass to the second part of the Commission's report. They examined with the greatest care the Native Lands Trust. Ordinance and made one fundamental criticism on which is based all their recommendations. It is that the Ordinance fails sufficiently to distinguish between the function of protection and the function of management. The function of protection is the function of the board, but the day-to-day function of management is the work of the district commissioners and Government officials on the spot. There is nothing really new in that recommendation which they make. In a letter appended to the Report of the Hilton Young Commission, three men who knew the subject well, Sir Reginald Mant, Sir George Schuster and Mr. J. H. Oldham, laid it down that:
The first and principal need, which may be prescribed as the protective need, is to fix the areas to be set aside, and provide secure protection for the preservation of the beneficial rights over such areas to the natives. The second and almost equally important need, which we will call the constructive need, is to provide for the actual use of land in such a manner as will be of the greatest benefit to the natives..…
It is not sufficient merely to reserve the land under the dead hand of a rigid and unalienable legal restriction, and it is a necessary consequence of these considerations that a measure which aims at preserving the beneficial use of the land to the natives must include regulation for handling it.
I think everybody will agree that those two functions were not adequately provided for in the old Land Trust
Ordinance. The result has been a lack of elasticity which is administratively very inconvenient and has worked to the detriment of the natives. It tended to ignore what is becoming increasingly important, namely, individual rights, and it saddled this unfortunate board with a mass of administrative details that it was wholly incompetent and unable to discharge, and which in fact it did not attempt to discharge. If it had attempted to discharge the whole of these functions the whole business would have broken down.
The Commission say, in the first place, as regards the division of responsibility, "Let us divide the question into major and minor. Let the board be responsible for the larger matters, the bigger questions of policy, the larger leases, the terms on which licences will be given, the bigger questions of water rights, and so on." My catalogue is not exhaustive. Moreover, if they think that the reserves are not being developed to the best advantage of the natives, they are to have the right to make representation to the Governor or Secretary of State, but the hundred and one detailed matters should be the function of the people who are there to do it, namely, the officers of the Government, and it will be generally accepted that that is a very sound and practical division of functions.
Now I come to one matter on which a recommendation was made by the Commission with which the Government here are not in agreement. They recommended that there should be substituted for a local board a London board. We have given consideration to this matter, and the Cabinet have arrived at a very definite conclusion, and that is that that proposal would be constitutionally unsound and practically unworkable. It must have been considered by my hon. friends opposite when they were forming the Native Lands Trust Board, and I have no doubt they felt, as we in this Government have felt. On the constitutional side this recommendation was made under a complete misapprehension of the functions of the Privy Council. The suggestion is that the board in London should be responsible to the
Privy Council. Such a thing is not possible, but is it not obviously right that the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Secretary of State responsible
to this House It is quite inconceivable that this House should deprive either the Secretary of State or itself, which is much more important, of the power to exercise that responsibility. It is essential that on any question of administration or policy this House should have the right to hold the Secretary of State responsible. If that is once laid down, then the idea that a board should be established in London, independent of the Secretary of State or the House of Commons, is obviously unconstitutional and impracticable.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: This matter is of very great importance.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is indeed.

Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the procedure set forth in the recommendation would ultimately differ from the existing arrangement?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would differ entirely, because a board responsible to the Privy Council would seem to have no sort of relation to the Secretary of State or to this House at all. But let me come to the practical side of this matter. How on earth could a board in London do the job which the Commission recommend that this board should do? It has got to approve of leases of land of more than 10 acres, subject to a power to delegate it to the Chief Native Commissioner up to 50 acres; it has got to be responsible for approving the setting aside of areas of more than 100 acres; it has got to be responsible for or to be consulted on all major questions affecting water rights; it has got to approve or to be consulted on the general principles on which licences are granted from time to time; and it has got generally to supervise and to be able to make representations to the Governor, and if necessary to the Secretary of State, on the whole broad policy of development. How on earth could a board sitting here in London do that? Frankly, I do not understand it. It has got to be in constant touch with the officers and the Government and the Chief Native Commissioner, it has got to be able to consult with the local native councils and so on, and I simply do not understand how the board could possibly function.
I know that one of two things would happen. Either it would be absolutely impotent, or you would have the most interminable delays. If it attempted to discharge its functions as it should do, it would find within a very few weeks that it was no good sitting in London and it would have to transfer its sittings to Kenya. Therefore, I think it is of the greatest importance, and we have given to it the most careful consideration. I discussed this matter with the Government in Kenya before I came home, and I think it is indeed a very important question, but I am bound to say—and I am stating here the carefully considered judgment of the Government—that we believe that no only would such a proposal be constitutionally inconvenient in regard to this House, but that it would be practically quite impossible, and we are satisfied that the board should be a board in Kenya. I would observe on the question of security, on which some stress was laid, that we must not overlook the fact that the great element of security is going to be provided by the boundaries of the reserves being defined by the Order in Council, which the Board cannot touch at all. All the recommendations as regards the Native Lands Trust Ordinance will take a great deal of drafting, and much time will have to he occupied in preparing the amended Ordinance, but we thought there was no doubt that first of all the people should know at once that these additions were going to be made to the reserves so that there would be no doubt as to the broad line of policy to be adopted.
In one matter immediate local legislation was required. The Committee will see that the Commission recommend an alternative method for the granting of mining leases. I need not go into this now but they give very full reasons, and very convincing reasons, I think, that that procedure is likely to be not only in itself more convenient but much more consonant with native sentiment and native wishes. We accept that, and have given instructions that an ordinance shall be introduced forthwith in order to enable mining leases to be granted in the way recommended by the Commission. I may say that I have had the advantage of being able to submit a draft of that legislation to Sir Morris Carter, in order
to make sure that with the drafting of what must be a technical measure he was in complete accord. That legislation will be carried through as rapidly as possible, in order that the natives may have the benefit of the more convenient method, if they wish to use it.
Let me add a word about the mining areas. I add it now from first-hand experience, and I should like to say that every single word which I have said in this House on information received is, as hon. Members who have visited Kenya will know, absolutely accurate. If I may respectfully say so, I have never heard more nonsense talked about any subject than about what is going on in the mining areas. I have heard accounts given—Members in this House will recollect them —by people who certainly had not been to Kenya, or who if they had been must have an extraordinary imagination, of how we were going to create a second Rand, and great areas of desolation from which natives were going to be evicted. Not a single native has been disturbed in one of them, and what surprised me about the whole matter is not the amount of the disturbance, but the smallness of it. The greatest anxiety among the natives was in the early stages, when a very large number of prospectors were staking out claims. That is the kind of thing that causes anxiety. That fact was not overlooked by the Government officers on the spot and they set themselves to explain exactly what was happening or likely to take place, with the result that there is a relationship between the prospectors and the mining representatives and the natives which affords an absolute protection.
There has been extraordinarily little disturbance, and, where it has taken place, there has been the most generous compensation. I can tell the House of one rather amusing incident that I saw myself. It will indicate that compensation is paid on a scale which, I have said more than once in this House, landowners in this country would probably be glad to receive. With all the generous treatment of the British farmer, there is nothing to compare with the scale of native compensation. On one occasion I saw some rather sickly looking banana trees on one of the mining locations. I said, "They are not looking very well." The reply was, "They are not. It was known that we were going to dig a
trench, so these were removed from the native garden last night and put where the trench is to go, but, as we did not see them put here we shall have to pay compensation."
It has been said that nothing will grow; that the land is a sort, of Sodom and Gomorrah. What nonsense. I saw maize growing on filled in trenches better than where the land had not been cut up. The roads have been enormously improved, and a valuable market is being created, and employment which is readily accepted. The Church has taken an interest in this matter. I am sure the House will accept from me that what I am giving is a true account. But lest I should be thought to be a blind or prejudiced witness let me read to the House the opinion of a bishop. Some bishops express opinions on Kenya without knowing it, but this bishop, the Bishop of Croydon, saw Kenya before he expressed an opinion. At the end of his letter to the "Times," dated 16th May, he says:
I would like, if I may, to make two further observations based on my own experience on the spot. One is that up to the present time no single native has been forcibly displaced on account of the gold-mining operations. He and his hut, and at any rate part of his plantation, have remained in the midst of the trenches and the pits. The other and more general observation I would venture to make is that if it is right at all, as I personally am convinced that it is, to get gold out of the earth, even though the surface is native owned, then everything that can be done is being done both to ensure justice to the original African owners and to see that native interests in the whole area shall not suffer.
I commend that statement, written by a man who spent days on the spot investigating it, to some of those who are ready to attack the Government and myself on this subject. Looking to the future as far as one can tell (I am not going to advise as to whether there is or is not going to be a valuable goldfield), further developments are not likely to be very different from the preliminary operations. You have not here a territory with a vast area of gold running continuously. You have a series of narrow seams at a considerable distance from one another, some apparently very rich. It is most probable that in the development you will have what I predicted more than a year ago may be one of the most fortunate developments in mining that have ever taken place, a development
which will not displace the local natives but will afford employment on the spot, creating remunerative employment and increasing the market for what they produce. That it seems to me will be a very happy outcome. Kenya has its fair share of problems and has come in for a fair share of criticism in the past. So long as the criticism is constructive and based on knowledge nobody objects to it. It will always be welcome. But criticism which, if I may respectfully say so, is bred by prejudice out of ignorance, is not criticism to which anybody need pay an endue regard. I would appeal to all those who are interested in this matter to realise that above all what the people in that country are anxious to obtain is the certainty that breeds a sense of security, confidence and co-operation.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: May I, first of all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his recovery from the dangerous illness which he had in East Africa. Not long ago we were receiving alarming bulletins about his condition, but from the speech which he has delivered to-day I think we may say that no traces of the illness are left now. It must have been a disappointment that he was unable to complete the programme he set out to perform. I want to say that I have been slightly surprised at his speech and especially at the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to think that when he speaks to the Committee he should be so dogmatic that the last word has been said when he has spoken, and that there are not two sides to any question. That is how I interpret much of what he has said during the last quarter of an hour of his Speech.
This is a very important Debate, and it is perhaps the most placid Debate that we get on any estimates that we have to discuss. It is a very good thing that the Committee has been able to overcome what threatened to be a restriction upon the Debate at the beginning. When we take the Colonial Estimates each year we imagine that it will be possible to discuss any part of the Colonial Empire. That is what we have done in previous years, and the Colonial Secretary has made it possible to-day, as I understand it, for hon. Members to refer to any part of the Empire they wish. As I said, this is a placid Debate. We rarely get a
division on this occasion, and it does not give an opportunity for the bitter expressions that occur when home policy is discussed in this House.

Mr. HANNON: Is that not a great tribute to the successful administration of the Colonial Office?

Mr. LUNN: It does not apply simply to the present Government. It was equally true under the previous Governments, but it does not follow that we must accept everything. I do not expect the Government to accept the Socialist policy in regard to the Colonies that I should wish to put forward if it were in order, hut, as we are trustees of the people who inhabit the Colonies and rave accepted the paramountcy of native Interest in the Colonies, it ought to be possible for the Secretary of State or the Colonial administration to accept many of the suggestions that are made from all parts of the House at all times to see that the interests of the Colonies and the residents there are made better than they are. I take that view in regard to the Debate that we have to-day on the Estimates for the Colonial Office. I believe a generous-minded Secretary of State could make a good deal of use of the suggestions that are made which are not destructive and which, though critical, may be constructive.
It happened three years ago that Kenya was the main feature of the Debate on the Colonial Estimates. Then we had the report of the committee which dealt with closer union with East Africa. Two years ago it was Lord Moyne's report on the financial state of Kenya, and last year it was a repudiation by the Secretary of State of the recommendation of Lord Moyne that an Income Tax should be started in Kenya and the illegal violation of what had been understood to be the position with regard to natives and their land and the gold mining that has been started there. This year the greater part of the speech has been made on the Morris Carter report which deals with land questions in Kenya, and I suppose it will occupy the premier position in the Debate to-day. It is a large volume, and it is difficult for Members of Parliament to follow these things and to become closely acquainted with them, but I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the volume the Colonial Office
have published on the economic survey of the Colonial Empire. It is a very valuable one which will be very interesting to everyone concerned about the Colonies and will be a valuable book of reference. It deals not only with the agricultural position, with the area and population, but with all the possibilities of development of the natural resources and gives to us a knowledge of the Empire out there that we have not had provided in any volume before. Great credit is due to those who have produced this volume, and not least to the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean), who is an enthusiast on this subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that we shall have this information sooner in future, because the information in this volume only goes up to the end of 1932.
Before I come to the Morris Carter report I would like to mention a Debate in this House which took place during the absence of the right hon. Gentleman in East Africa. A Motion was before the House calling for a Parliamentary inquiry into the Constitution of Ceylon. Most of us knew that that was not the purpose of those who raised that Debate, knew that Ceylon was not necessarily the centre of the picture, and that it was another aspect of the Government's policy which was being attacked. I said then, as I say now, that the Constitution of Ceylon is a new and a novel one and that we should gain longer experience of its working before holding an inquiry. I was pleased that the Under-Secretary for the Dominions took that view, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman shares it. I have since read a very long speech by the Leader of the House in the State Council of Ceylon, Sir Dom B. Jayatilaka, who, I think, gave a very able reply to the Opposition; and in the "Times" a few days ago I read an article by a correspondent lately in Ceylon in which it was said:
In spite of much ill-informed criticism of government by committee in Ceylon the State Council, modelled more or less on the London County Council"—
And that is a very good model just now, when the London County Council have a Labour majority—
is by the general consent of those who are in a position to judge working effectively. What friction has occurred has, in large measure, been due to the desire for more self-control in the only departments which interest a large number of the elected members.
It is a very righteous desire that people should seek for powers under which they can accomplish more for those whom they represent. I do not say that inquiry into the Constitution of Ceylon may not be necessary at some time, because it may be possible to extend that form of Constitution to some other part of the Colonial Empire, seeing that it is working to the advantage of the people in Ceylon, but when we do inquire into the Constitution of Ceylon, do not let us do so with the veiled object of attacking some other and disconnected subject. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Morris Carter Commission's report and if one heeded what he said one would feel that it was almost impossible for anybody to hold any other opinion than that which he expressed. The commission was appointed in April, 1932, and its report has been in the hands of the Government for eight months—seven months before it was published. It was in their hands in September, and was not published until May, an unusually long interval.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Do not let us have any mystery about this. It is perfectly true that one copy was available, that which had been signed by the commissioners, and I think there was one other, on which the printer was working. The report was printed in Kenya, where printing takes longer than in this country. There was no delay in making it public, both in Kenya and here, as soon as it was ready; but it took an enormous time.

Mr. LUNN: It might have been printed here. It does not take long to print a report in this country.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If it was a mistake not to print it here, that is my responsibility, but it was a Kenya document and normally would be printed there. Further, I do not think it would have been practicable to print it in this country, because it includes an enormous number of maps, and it was absolutely essential to have it printed where there was a secretary on the spot who could correct the maps and so on, and there was nobody in this country who could do that.

Mr. LUNN: There would have been no difficulty in a secretary coming over here to see to the printing; but I do not raise
this as a matter of importance. I am only drawing attention to the fact that the report could have been printed here as well as in Kenya, and to the fact that it was seven months before the report was published, and that is an unusually long time. To say that Members have had it in their hands for many weeks is not quite the fact, because it is not long since it was published and distributed. Before the commission began its work we made it very clear that, by reason of the constitution of the commission, we could not be bound to accept its findings. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about this being the end of the matter as regards the land question in Kenya, he must remember that we made it clear at the beginning, and that we say the same to-day, that we do not take the view that the report is final, nor can we accept the whole of the conclusions at which the commission has arrived.
When the right hon. Gentleman allowed the illegal occupation by European miners of parts of the Kavirondo Reserve we made it clear to him and the Government that we reserved our right to repudiate that decision at any time, and we cannot accept the view of this commission that this is the final volume, that this is the final inquiry and the end of this matter. Moreover, our final decisions cannot be reached at the present time. They must be held up for some time, because the right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) on 6th June this year, that every opportunity will be given to those who are concerned with the recommendations to consider these matters before a final decision is arrived at. We welcome that declaration and we hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is carried out.
I can associate myself quite clearly with the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the work of the Commission. It is one of the features of the Colonial Office Debate that there are so many opportunities to express appreciation and to pronounce congratulation such as do not arise on other Debates. Personally, I am not so very anxious to offer congratulations to the present Government, because if there were anything I could do to bring about its downfall I should certainly do it, in any part of the Empire or any part of the world; but, all the same, this is
the Debate in which one gets an opportunity to offer congratulations, and I can do that quite sincerely, even in the case of a commission of this sort, because I realise that they have endeavoured to secure all the information possible. They have taken steps to ascertain the opinion of representatives of every section of the community in Kenya, and in listening to nearly 500 native witnesses they showed extreme patience. In their report they acknowledge that the native reserves are inadequate and recommend that 1,500 square miles should be added to the reserves, and I see by the White Paper that the Government here accept that recommendation. They advise, and this Government agree, that those areas should be secured to the tribes by Order in Council, which means that they cannot be altered by the local government. That shows, what has been often said in this House, that the Government have no faith in the local government of Kenya carrying out even a declaration of this sort.
I do not intend to go into the details of this matter, or to read long passages from this report, although there are many excellent texts in it, from my point of view, which could be applied to the land question in Kenya or to the land question in this country. Although 1,500 square miles are to be added to the reserves it is disappointing to find that very little of the land which was taken away from the natives before is to be restored to them. Only a small amount of all that has been taken from the native inhabitants of that Colony is to go back to them. I see that it is only 1,500 acres, and not 1,500 square miles, which are to be added to the Kavirondo Reserves. That is all that is to be taken away from those who have taken the land from the natives during the last35 years. Further, is it not a fact that much of the land to be added to the reserves is malarial? The commission recommend that the boundaries of the Highlands which have been collared by Europeans and are in their occupation should be established for them by Order in Council.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When the hon. Gentleman says that they have been collared by the white man is he now, on behalf of the Labour party, repudiating Lord Passfield's declaration?

Mr. LUNN: I am not in any way repudiating Lord Passfield's declaration,
which was made in 1930, but I think it is an historical fact that this happened even before Lord Passfield's declaration. I would like to ask whether the Commission are not recommending that not only shall they be retained in their present ownership, but that the major forests of Kenya, which are some of the best lands, shall for the first time become part of the European-owned Highlands. We are pleased to see certain things in this Report. Before the Debate ends I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us an undertaking as to whether there will be equal opportunities for all races in regard to mining.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will give that undertaking now. Mining legislation in Kenya makes no distinction, and never has, between one race and another.

Mr. LUNN: I am very pleased to hear that. The conditions under which mining is carried on place a tremendous limitation upon those who live there. Another point in the report is that land trust boards are to be set up, and the representatives upon them are to be Africans, plus the district commissioners. I am now dealing with the good points in the report, and the one I have just mentioned is a step in the right direction. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Land Board sitting in London. The Morris Carter Commission had no faith whatever that the people in Kenya knew how to be fair. They had no confidence in Kenya's impartiality. I suggest that the Governor and the legal adviser should he members of the Central Land Board.
I have no intention of dealing with the details of the report, but there is another side to it. We should have liked to see some of the hundreds of miles of the best land in respect of soil, water and climate restored to the Africans. I have not been to East Africa, but I am speaking on instructions from people who are very well acquainted with it. I understand that on some of the white estates, not 15 per cent, of the land is cultivated, and yet less than 10 per cent, of the land to be added to the reserves is to be taken from the Europeans. With what the right hon. Gentleman said arid with what the report of the Commission says about the cultivation of the land,
I entirely agree. The land ought to be cultivated if possible, and steps ought to be taken to see that the best use is made of the land, either in the Colonies or in this country. We know that Africans cannot obtain land by purchase or by any other means in the Highlands. I believe that there are only 1,500 acres which are being added to the Kavirondo.

Mr. WISE: For the sake of fairness, will the hon. Gentleman allow me to give the exact figures as to land that has been added to the Kavirondo reserves; the figure is 66 square miles.

Mr. LUNN: At the moment my information is that it is 1,500 acres, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman used that figure. I do not even say that they have been added, but that they have been taken from European occupation in order to be added to the reserves.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are two separate additions to the Kavirondo reserves. There is 66 square miles which It is recommended should be added to the reserves to supplement native territory. Apart from that, there is a recommendation as to 1,500 acres, taken out of the old forest reserves, and to be made available in the very unlikely event of some substitute land being required with regard to mining.

Mr. LUNN: I was not dealing with land that was to be added to each reserve. I have left out all the tribes to whose land additions were to be made separately. The only point I was putting was that 1,500 acres were to be added to the Kavirondo reserves and would be taken from the Europeans. There is no information about land which has been offered to the Kikuyu tribe for economic development and to relieve congestion. If mining is to continue, will the Secretary of State take into consideration the waste of land caused by drainage or reef mining? He knows that there is a good deal of wastefulness involved in that. The people have no doubt suffered great losses from that form of mining, which might continue in the future more than it has done in the past.
The Labour Government's native charter in 1930 laid down that the natives' occupation of this land was for ever, but that has been violated. We believe that a lesson can be taken in regard to
this matter from the Petroleum Bill which has just passed this House, and in which petroleum was declared to be the property of the Crown. It could also be laid down that gold in Kenya should be the property of the nation. There may be other minerals there, such as copper or radium, and they should be worked by the Government. We are opposed to private ownership in land, and we do not see the necessity for giving up land to private ownership in any colony. If we were in power we should be opposed to that part of the business, as it is carried on at the present time. We object to the very long leases which are made in Kenya, and which are practically equal to private ownership of the land. Leases made for 999 years are practically for ever. No lease ought to be granted beyond the lifetime of the present occupier. I know that the Government do not agree with me in that, but that would be the attitude which I should take up. I need say very little more about the report except that I hope that no tribe or section of the African community will be rushed into accepting it before they have considered it. During the last day or two I have received a telegram, as follows:
We representatives Kikuyu tribe convey our sincere thanks for land commission recording lengthy evidence patiently, but strongly protest against your accepting report without giving us enough time study and lodge objection. Respectfully beg no action be taken immediately.
This is signed by Koinange, who is well known and can I think speak for that tribe. He met the Commission when it was out there.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I say, in order to clear my own mind, that we have had an inquiry by an official tribunal, before which everybody has given evidence. The native to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred was among the 487 natives who gave evidence. Is it suggested that the Commission's report, which adds to the thousands of square miles of the reserves, should not be carried out until we have consulted, or had an opportunity of consulting, every native in the whole of Kenya?

Mr. LUNN: There is no need to put the matter in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on 6th June on this matter. He
asked to be assured that the native community of Kenya had the fullest rights of conference and public meeting, in order that they could have this report discussed and understood. The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance. He said:
I am sure the Government in Kenya can be relied on to permit all proper facilities for the discussion of the report.
In answer to a supplementary question by myself later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We have very able district officers in Kenya who, I am sure, will give all information on all Matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1934; col. 921, Vol. 290.]

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

Mr. COVE: We do not interrupt the Minister.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is it in order, when I desire to ask a question of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who with perfect courtesy is always ready to give way, for some hon. Member to complain that I am interrupting?

Mr. LUNN: I am not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman. The unfortunate part of such interruptions arises from the knowledge which may be in possession of those who have lived or spent a good deal of their time in the Colony. That circumstance makes their interruptions not always as welcome as they might be, if one had an intimate knowledge such as the interrupters possess. The natives should have genuine and sympathetic assistance so that they may understand all that is involved in the recommendations of the report. We do not regard as final the report on the subject of the Kenya land question. We shall reserve our right when we are in power—as we shall be, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as most hon. Members know who have intimated that they want to get out and not fight in the next General Election—to alter what may be done as a result of this report. We are satisfied that in many ways the report is not in the interests of the native. There are no civil liberties in Kenya for the native, and no equal rights with others. When the time comes to which I have referred, and perhaps before that, there will have to be a change in the method of the Government.
I will leave the report now to other hon. Gentlemen who want to discuss it. We shall have to return to the report and its recommendations before anything of a final nature can be accepted with regard to it.
It is rather remarkable that although we have scores of territories, only a few of them are discussed when the Colonial Office Vote is before the Committee. Matters concerning other individual Colonies may be raised, but there is one thing that I want to raise with regard to all Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the commencement of his speech, said that all the services—education, health and other social services—in the Colonies were being carried on almost without reduction, but I would like him to give us further assurances that that is the fact, because my information is that, while the administration is kept on with very little reduction, services of vital importance, like those of the health, education and labour departments in these Colonies, have suffered considerably. We fear that it is in those services that the economies have been imposed, and, if so, they are in a very wrong direction. We want, for instance, to see more educational facilities provided than exist to-day, so that the people may have educational opportunities which will fit them for taking over the government of their own country when occasion offers in the future. It is also vital that the health of the people should be maintained.
I notice from the Estimates that many of the grants which were made to the Empire Marketing Fund for scientific research are now being made through the Colonial Office, and I do not complain of that, because scientific research will not only mean an improvement in the health of the people, but it will mean that their economic status will be raised. It is the natives who do the work in these Colonies, some of which have had excellent labour departments, but I am informed that many of those labour departments have been seriously depleted of officers, and I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter and see that, in the interests of the people, everything is done to strengthen those departments and make them more competent than they are at present.
In conclusion, I would repeat what I said at the end of my speech last year—
that the question of paramount importance to our people at home are their own domestic questions. This question of the Colonies, important as it is, has not much electoral value in the constituencies of this country, but it is a vital question to the House of Commons. To the people of our country the vital question is that of their own domestic conditions, which in hundreds of thousands of homes are not what they ought to be to-day; but, so long as we have a Colonial Empire, we have a duty and a great responsibility as trustees for the welfare of the peoples of that Empire. We have accepted the policy of the paramountcy of native interests in the Colonies, and we should all seek to do what we can to cultivate their confidence in everything that we undertake. The criticisms that I have made are not made merely for the sake of criticism, but for the purpose of helping to get to the point that I want to reach, when the natives will have every right that we ourselves have or desire. Until that end has been achieved, I shall not be satisfied that we have done our duty towards the different parts of our Colonial Empire.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: Like the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend on his complete recovery from his illness. It has been a source of anxiety to his friends, and it must have been a personal disappointment to him that he was unable to complete all his investigations, of some of which he has given us such an interesting account this afternoon. The Committee must have heard with much satisfaction of the greatly improved economic and financial situation of the Colonies. The recovery is remarkable, and is entirely satisfactory. In these times it is impossible to take a very long view, but, having regard to the present improved outlook for tropical agriculture generally, it is not too much to hope that that improvement may continue, and that perhaps, in the Federated Malay States in particular, when my right hon. Friend comes to review the situation in 12 months' time, he may be able to record a further considerable improvement,
I was quite fascinated by my right hon. Friend's interesting account of the
multitude of agricultural, educational and other activities which are carried on by his Department, and it is pleasing to know that they are producing satisfactory results. To mention one perhaps rather small matter to which he referred, I am very pleased to learn that some experimental farms have been established in Cyprus. I think that that will be extremely useful, but I am afraid it is not quite enough. I do not know what the conditions there have been during the last few years, since I had the opportunity of seeing them myself, but in those days, as in other parts of the Middle and Far East, the real trouble of the agriculturists was that they were in the hands of usurers. One way of extracting them from those difficulties, which will remain however efficient their agriculture, might be the development, such as has already been started, of agricultural co-operative societies, who might make financial arrangements with the Loan Board, or Agricultural Bank, whereby they might be free in the marketing of their goods. Another essential thing is that the agriculturists should be protected from being swindled, as they appeared to be, in the weights of everything that they brought into the market, by the establishment of public weighing machines or some public central market where fair prices were to be obtained, where the market prices could be known, and where the actual weighing could be carried out under fair conditions.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend's commendation of the efforts to do something with regard to the ancient monuments of Cyprus. I hope that those in this country who are interested will give such support as they can in connection with this matter, which has now become urgent if anything is to be achieved. It is not merely a question of the making of chance discoveries, or the rifling of tombs which have been opened up the course of agricultural operations, but of preserving these wonderful monuments, which are not only of great historic importance, but are unique in their architectural and other features, and which are crumbling to dust at the present moment. If action be not taken without delay, it may well be too late to do any useful work in this direction at all.
I rose really to make one or two observations with regard to the Morris Carter Report and the position in Kenya. In this connection I regret very much the enforced absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who has special knowledge of many of these problems, and who, indeed, from time to time has had special responsibility in connection with them. He has the advantage of knowing the background against which all these troubles and difficulties stand, and, had he been here, his advice and comments would have been valuable and interesting to the Committee.
I desire to associate myself to the full with what my right hon. Friend said about the enormous amount of work which the Commission had to perform, and the fair-minded and just way in which they have sought to carry it out. It is impossible for any Member of the House of Commons, or, indeed, for anyone at all who is not actually connected in some way with the work of the commission, fully to realise the immense work of the examination of witnesses and the difficulties of deciding between shadowy claims wrapped in the mysteries of the past, which in that country are very numerous indeed, and claims of substance, but the Report bears evidence throughout of a definite attempt to hold the balance equally between the different interests concerned. Further, and this I think really goes to the root of the business, it is extremely difficult, having regard both to the state of development of the native settlements and to the conditions of the Europeans, to forecast the future but I think that the commission, in drawing up the principles upon which the land should be divided, have succeeded in making as sound proposals as could be made, in this stage of development, for the best use and development of the land having regard to the future requirements of the native and also of the European population.
The report deals with many matters of immense importance, to one of which in particular I should like to draw attention, as my right hon. Friend did not do so. That is the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the over-stocking which is already taking place in some parts of the Colony. It is not too much to say that this diffi-
culty is comparable with that of the actual delimitation of the country itself. Experience in other parts of the world clearly shows that neglect in this matter may result in reasonably good land being converted into a desert, and, if the position were allowed to drift, there would be nothing to prevent a situation such as has happened in various parts of Africa, and even in parts of Europe, which would make the Commission's work in regard to the delimitation of lands almost futile in the course of time. The report of the Commission is in some parts almost alarming. They describe the situation in one section of the country as being one of unrelieved gloom, and I want to suggest that whatever steps may be necessary to deal with this matter should be taken. It is comforting to see that one important tribe are themselves recognising the evils arising from over-stocking, and are taking some steps to combat it of their own accord.
It seems to me that, as the Commission say, the only final solution is to persuade the native to co-operate in his own salvation. I have in mind the seriousness of the position in regard to those parts of the Colony which the Commission speak of in such gloomy terms. There, it seems to me, the processes of education may be very difficult, if not impossible but whatever steps may be necessary it is clear the Government must act. I recognise in every way the value of the report, but at the same time I believe that it is not above criticism. Neither are the recommendations of the Government. If they were, they would be the only two human institutions within the range of my knowledge which are above criticism. I intend to avail myself of the right hon. Gentleman's in vitation when he said he welcomed criticism which was not born of prejudice and ignorance. With regard to prejudice. I deny that I have the slightest association with it at all. With regard to the other, it would ill become me if I made any reference to it. I have at least read the White Paper, and I think all the material sections of the report, and I have also had access to opinions on these matters which I must admit are more valuable than my own.
A long series of investigations have taken place. There was the report of the Commission presided over by the First Commissioner of Works, then there
was the Hilton Young Report, and the Select Committee. I have also in mind the important Debates that took place in this House and in another place last year, and in particular the very strong appeal made by the Archbishop of Canterbury that before a final decision on these matters was reached there should be opportunity for full consideration. This White Paper presents the matter to the House not intend as a fait accompli, but as a chose jugee. There is, of course, a difference between the two. But it is a precedent which I hope will not be adopted generally. I can imagine in some cases that it might have very serious consequences. For example it would be far from helpful if this course were adopted when the Indian Joint Select Committee makes its report.
Speaking generally of the report, I see no reason why it should not be the basis of a permanent settlement of these difficulties which have been a source of anxiety to previous Secretaries of State and to the local government and have also been a source of much uneasiness from time to time to the people of this country. We have not had very much time in which to consider and to deal with these very difficult questions. The Government have had access to the report for seven months, but those who are deeply interested in the matter have only been able to give little more than a preliminary consideration to this voluminous report. The hon. Member for Rothwell referred to the position of the Kikuyu tribe. The commissioners devoted an immense amount of care and time to the whole matter, which is one of extreme complexity. I associate myself to the full with the words used by the Colonial Secretary when he deprecated criticism of these detailed local matters. It could serve no useful purpose and would be mischievous in so far as it tended to destroy respect for the local government in Kenya or other parts of the Empire if—

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having re-turned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1934.
2. Palestine Loan Act, 1934.
3. Adoption of Children (Workmen's Compensation) Act, 1934.
4. Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1934.
5. Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934.
6. Renfrewshire County Council (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Order Confirmation Act, 1934.
7. Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1934.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morley) Act, 1934.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Steyning and District Water) Act, 1934.
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Milford Haven) Act, 1934.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Burnham and District Water) Act, 1934.
12. Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1934.
13. Mexborough and Swinton Traction (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.
14. St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.
15. Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.
16. Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.
17. Prince of Wales's Hospital, Plymouth, Act, 1934.
18. Walth.amstow Corporation Act, 1934.
19. Maidstone Waterworks Act, 1934.
20. Stockport Corporation Act, 1934.
21. Stockport Extension Act, 1934.
22. Newport Extension Act, 1934.
23. London County Council (Money) Act, 1934.
24. London Passenger Transport (Interim Financial Arrangements) Act, 1934.
25. Newport Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1934.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee. [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £99,519, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. WHITE: When Black Rod summoned us to another place I was questioning the recommendation of the commission with regard to the Kikuyu Land Reserves. I was on the point of saying that, looking broadly at the reports of the commission, one cannot help but feel doubtful whether the proposed allocation of land for the tribe, having regard to the character of the land and the fact that so much is already in occupation, and the tendency of the tribe to increase in numbers, will really suffice for more than a temporary settlement—possibly for not more than a. few years—of this very difficult question. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) asked whether the Kikuyu had been consulted. It would be of great interest to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman could say what were the reactions of the people to these proposals. Perhaps it is possible to give some indication of the feeling. Another matter upon which there appears to be room for two opinions is that of the European Highlands.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The immediate issue is that,, the commission have recommended that certain additions should be made. We propose to adopt the recommendations of the commission and to make these Additions to the reserves. It does not follow, and I do not think anyone would presume to say, that, in the fulness of time, as things develop —there is a great deal of other land which is called D land—the reserves, even with these large additions, will be sufficient for ever and ever. That is not the issue at present. That would be an issue if one said that no one is ever to have any part in the D land. That is not said at the moment. Here and now we are making additions to reserves which the commission recommended, And upon that, I think, we are all agreed.

Mr. WHITE: I do not think that that meets my point. It was on the actual recommendations of the Commission as they stand at the moment, and I doubt whether they will suffice for more than a comparatively short space of time. If I understand the point of the B land, and that if the case arises there may be a further addition to the reserves, it would appear to safeguard the future, as far as one can possibly see it. On the subject of the European Highlands, it seems to me that the foundation of the Commission's report is not quite historically sound. The establishment of a privileged position for the Europeans in the Highlands, as I understand the position, has been defined from the earliest times. It was defined by Lord Elgin in his despatch, and in the well-known despatch of the Duke of Devonshire in 1923. Lord Passfield, before the Committee on Closer Union, made it clear that the privileged position of the Europeans in the Higlands was vis-à-vis the Asiatics and not vis-à-vis the natives of Kenya itself. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and as this is a matter of opinion one can only agree or disagree. I think that that is the historical basis of the whole thing. I certainly agree that the only sensible and desirable course is that the boundary should be fixed as clearly and definitely as possible, but this inevitably raises the question whether the allocation of 17,600 square miles is the right proportion in respect of the 16,800 Europeans now in the country, and whether it preserves the proper balance between the future requirements of Europeans and the probable requirements of the natives living on this populated land.
In order to form a clear judgment upon that point, one would require to know how much of the land has been alienated already and what proportion is already in occupation. I addressed an inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman for some information and he has been good enough to give me some figures, and it appears that roughly one-third of the total area of the Highlands as recommended by the Commission is already alienated. There is something like one-sixth which is forest area, the user of which, presumably, will not change, and the remainder is some 10,000,000 acres or nearly two-thirds of the whole. That raises the question as
to whether there are not available plots of land in the unalienated portion which might be suitable for natives and which could be held in suspense and not ear- marked in advance, and made available for future use by the natives as the need arises. There are two opinions upon this matter. The Hilton Young Report dealing with this subject definitely advocates that certain further areas should again be mapped out—that has been done as a result of the recommendation of the Commission—definitely and immediately for alienation to non-natives, leaving the balance to be retained by the Government for disposal to native reserves, and, if necessary, for further alienation to non-natives or sale to natives. I quote that to show that there is room for two opinions on this matter.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Com-mission were asked to define the boundaries of the European Highlands having regard to all the pledges given in the past. They were not asked to express an opinion as to whether the pledges themselves were right or wrong, and it is relevant to observe that if you compare the map in the evidence which shows the differgrit proposals put forward from time to tine as what was a proper area, of the Highlands, having regard to the pledges given in the past, with the map in the body of the report, in which the land delimited by the Commission is shown, you will find that the actual delimitation shown by the Commission is a smaller area than any of the previous proposals.

Mr. WHITE: I am much obliged for the explanation. There is the further point as to the compensation to the natives who are now living on the land within the area. Money compensation is really no compensation at all to the native for land, and the question I wish to ask is whether the sum of money, a small one, £2,000, is really adequate to meet these claims. The whole object of the Commission was to try to get good will and allay unrest. I question whether the procedure in paragraph 13 of the White Paper is the best way to set about it. The natives are our fellow-subjects, and the question arises whether procedure by Order in Council is the best way to deal with the matter.
I now come to the most important matter in the report. The whole object was to allay the suspicion which has been
aroused, to remove the fears of the natives, and give them as good a title to the land as they can get, short of the legal title prohibited by the Courts enjoyed by Europeans. If we fail in that we fail in everything in Kenya. The Commission were wise in dividing its functions in the way they did. I am sure it will meet with the unanimous approval of anyone who gives the scantiest attention to the matter. Government must deal with development and details and the Lands Trust Board will be left with the function of protecting native rights in the area. That, of course, raises at once the question whether the board should be situate in London or in Kenya. I have read with great care the portion of the report dealing with that matter, and I am convinced by the statements and opinions of the Commission which led them to the conclusion that the board should be situate in London. Let me quote one or two of the points they make. They point out that the work of the board was not arduous and that occasions will be rare on which practical issues will arise; that the chief requirements in any board appointed as trustees for this purpose are that it should be independent and just, should command confidence, and they conclude their observations by saying that they see nothing in the list of duties which demands that the board should have a close local knowledge, or should of necessity be resident in the Colony.
The hon. Member for Rothwell suggested that the Governor should be a member of the board, and I think he also said the legal adviser. On that point the Secretary of State did not express any opinion, but I think it is most unsuitable that the Governor should be a member of the board. In the discharge of his duties he might make some proposal which would conflict with the duties of the board in protecting the interests of the natives, and in that case the matter would have to come to the
Secretary of State for his decision. It is, of course, of the first importance that it should be independent and just, and that the, members of the board should be entirely free from contact with local interests and local politics, and, indeed, that, so far as the natives are concerned, they should be free even from a suspicion of such contact. If the board
were situate in London, the native would say that it was entirely independent, he would have complete reliance on its justice. He would say, "The King is looking after our affairs." The right hon. Gentleman has decided otherwise, and proposes to deal with the matter in another way. I am not impressed with the difficulty of keeping in touch with the Colony, particularly in these days of rapid communication, when these difficulties are becoming less every day. I think, on the whole, that the balance of advantage is in having the board in London, the Commission themselves decided in its favour, and one member, Mr. Hemsted, went so far as to make it a definite recommendation. I have ventured to bring before the Committee some matters on which there is obviously room for two opinions, and, having regard to the history of the matter, I hope the Secretary of State will be prepared to receive memoranda from those who are particularly interested in this question and give it his serious consideration.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) wished to move to reduce the Vote by £100. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the fact, and I will ask him formally to move the reduction now.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: We have just been reminded of the fact that we are discussing an Amendment for a reduction; in other words, a Vote of Censure. An atmosphere palpitating with excitement, these crowded benches, are the measure of the danger which the Secretary of State is running this afternoon. All the same, I rather wish that no reduction had been moved. After the wide measure of agreement arrived at by members of all parties on the Joint Select Committee three years ago, and after this report which has been discussed to-day, a report so careful, so exhaustive and so fair-minded, I should have hoped that Kenya, after many years, might be allowed for a space of time, at any rate, to be left outside the sphere of party controversy. I do not propose to follow that question any further, but rather to say one or two words about the general problem of the development of our Colonial Empire, on
which my right hon. Friend touched so interestingly and so encouragingly in the earlier part of his statement.
In the present condition of the world we have to consider what are our assets and our opportunities. As the sphere of international trade, on which we relied in the last century, is steadily narrowing down, it is worth while remembering that we have open, existing, and within our power to create, a market which will compensate—perhaps more than compensate—for anything we may lose. Our Colonial Empire is even to-day an immensely important asset from the point of view of the trade of this country. Its total trade before the present depression set in was approaching a figure of £500,000,000 a year. In 1929, before any preferences had been begun, the trade of this country with the Colonial Empire amounted to something like £133,000,000 a year, and though with the general fall in prices that figure has dropped heavily, yet it is bound to recover, and, relatively to our trade with the rest of the world, has already shown a most remarkable advance. To-day, if we treat our Colonial Empire as a single market, it is definitely the biggest market for British goods in the world. In the first quarter of this year our exports to the Colonial Empire amounted to just under £9,250,000—more than our exports to India, our other largest single market, which amounted to £8,700,000. It was almost as large as our exports to Canada and Australia together, which were £9,500,000. That market and the Colonial Empire market in each case take three times as much from this country as the Argentine.
Those are interesting figures. What is also important is the character of the trade. The Colonial Empire produces raw materials and foodstuffs which are not produced in this country. As far as I can see, it will be a long time before the Colonial Empire to any appreciable extent will be interested in protecting domestic industries against British competition. It is essentially a complementary trade which it is in our power to develop. It is a long-distance trade which is already of great value to our shipping and can be made of even greater value to it. We are only at the very beginning of the development of our colonial resources. That is particularly true on the Continent of Africa, where a territory of 1,500,000 square miles, not
including the Sudan, possesses immense undeveloped resources, with a population of something like 50,000,000 whose innate resources, in numbers, in ability and in purchasing power, are also capable of immense development.
We are undertaking there one of the most important and most hopeful and also one of the most humanly interesting tasks which any nation ever undertook. We are offered a wonderful field both for our industries at home and for the men who are prepared to go out there from this country, to throw themselves into that work and to continue the splendid tradition of the Colonial service, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already paid tribute. That task of development can only be carried out by the utilisation of many factors. One basic factor is accurate, full and up-to-date information. I congratulate my right hon. Friend most heartily on the production of a monumental piece of statistical information which must be the foundation of all reasoned planning of development in the Colonial Empire. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division (Dr. McLean) for his most helpful and useful part in working out the statistics. I also suggest, without in any way being critical of what is clone in other parts of the Empire, that my right hon. Friend might draw the attention of the Dominion Governments and of the Government of India, and even the attention of some of our Departments here at home, to the advantage that it would be at an Imperial Conference if every part of the Empire were as adequately documented as the Colonial Empire now is. That is one essential task.
The other is the whole task of development that falls upon the administration. For the purposes of the Colonial Empire the Colonial Office is in some measure a Ministry of Health, a Ministry of Transport, a Ministry of Agriculture and a Ministry of Education, and, as my right lion. Friend has pointed out, matters of health and agriculture and education are very largely one and the same problem. It is only when you teach the natives how to attend to the problem of health and how to make the best use of their soil, that you get proper development, and at the same time you are giving them a form of education that most helps
the development of their minds at their present stage of progress.
Behind your administrative work you must have a general economic policy. That policy now must be effective mutual preference. My right hon. Friend has pointed out how valuable the preferences we are giving have been to the Colonial Empire, and the difference that preference has made between the depth of depression which they were passing through years ago and the very substantial measure of recovery which they have already achieved when all the world is still in the depths. I do not believe it is possible to get effective development without substantial preference. It is only if there is security of market for the products of the Colonies that the people in this country are going to take a personal interest in the development of those Colonies. They will go out to see for themselves what the opportunities are and to prepare for capital to go out. On the other hand I doubt whether in the long run you will get this country finding the capital, private and public, that is required for development, unless there is same mutuality about it, unless there is a corresponding direct advantage to our development from the development of the Colonies.
That brings me to a moral issue which we are bound to face as trustees for the population of our Colonies. Are we entitled to use our control over these populations in order to establish a system of preference in the Colonies? There was a time when we believed Free Trade to be the ideal system for any country, and naturally wherever we were responsible as trustees we applied it. There was a time also when there was such a thing as a world market for primary products. No one could produce a primary product who could not sell it. All that has passed away. To-day the position of a primary producer in a world of quotas and restrictions is the worst position of all, especially for small Colonies that have no large home market of their own. In the case of Colonies that are mainly dependent upon producing one particular article, the only chance of success and development is that someone with a great market will make that market secure to them.
Therefore to-day, from the point of view of our own outlook as well as from the
point of view of the direct interest of the populations that are dependent on us, it seems to me obvious that it is not only our right but our duty to establish an effective system of preference between themselves and us. After all, if we believe that mutual preference is a good thing in the relations between ourselves and any Colony or Dominion that has the power to decide its destiny, it must also be a good thing where the responsibility for deciding that destiny still rests with us. Or are we to assume that we are so incapable of governing fairly that we must continue to enforce a disastrous system upon dependent populations because we have not that confidence in our own ability to give them a fair and equal share in the advantages which would accrue from any mutual arrangement? From what I know of the traditions of the Colonial Office, from what I know of the intense local patriotism of every colonial administration, I am not afraid that local interests will be overlooked or forgotten in any mutual arrangements made between this country and the dependent Empire.
Our task is not only to promote trade between this country and the Colonies, but to help the development of the Colonies by any other trade that we can promote for them. First and foremost with the Dominions. I would congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very valuable work he did at Ottawa in seeing that inter-Empire preference included Colonial preference in the Dominions as well as preference in this country. It is very satisfactory to know that several of our recent trade treaties have made special provision for the interests of Colonial products. I have put down a Motion critical, in one aspect, of the recent Treaty with Lithuania, but I was delighted to see that, no doubt tat the instigation of my right hon. Friend, the Treaty provides special terms for bananas, limejuice, cocoa, tea and spices, all likely to be of real value to one part or another of the Colonial Empire.
If, therefore, we believe that it is our right and our duty to develop a system of preferences in the Colonial Empire, it is surely our task to get rid of those obstacles to the extension of preference which at present restrict our action over almost the whole of Africa. Those obstacles come under three
heads. There is, first of all, the Anglo-French Treaty covering the greater part of the West African possessions; secondly, there is the Convention of St. Germain-en-Laye, superimposed on the old Brussels and Berlin Acts, covering the Congo Basin conventional zone, most of French Equatorial Africa, the Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, and a corner of Northern Rhodesia; and lastly there are the economic stipulations in the various mandates which we have pledged ourselves to fulfil. Of these the easiest to get rid of are the provisions in the Anglo-French Convention. We could denounce them at a year's notice, and it is only France and ourselves who are concerned. As far as the trade position goes, as between France and ourselves, the arrangement is one that has not worked in our disfavour. The imports in our West African territories from France are undoubtedly less than the imports to that part of French West Africa which is affected by the treaty. It is difficult to quote exact figures, because our figures only give the exports to the whole of French West Equatorial Africa, which are about six or seven times as large as our West African imports from France. But undoubtedly the area covered by the treaty takes more British exports than the corresponding area of British territory takes of French exports.
That, however, leaves out of account the working of the most-favoured-nation clause, under which we import from other countries vastly more than we import from France or France imports from us. In British West Africa in 1932 we imported only £150,000 worth of French goods, but we imported £3,750,000 worth from other foreign countries. There are two ways in which we can meet that difficulty. One is to follow up what we have done in the case of Japan and denounce the most-favoured-nation clause in respect of our West African Colonies. The other alternative is to denounce the treaty itself, which we can do at 12 months' notice. I am not prepared to dogmatise as to which is the better way, or which would better promote the general policy of developing effective preference not only between this country and West Africa, but between West Africa and Canada, which some day may become an even larger importer of tropical produce than ourselves. But I do hope that my right hon. Friend will take into con-
sideration the need of immediate action on this matter.
A much more difficult problem is presented by the Berlin and Brussels Acts. They were part of a whole scheme for internationalising tropical Africa, in the days when people believed in internationalism and international Free Trade. A great part of the area was set up as an international free State. We all know that the international State became an international scandal, and in the interests of humanity, of the native inhabitants of the Congo, and of the good government of the world as a whole, that territory was taken over by Belgium as a Colony. The whole international system broke down in 1914. It was to be a system of international neutrality, but no one thought of that when the War broke out. To-day the economic restrictions on the full development of those territories are, from the point of view not only of the responsible Governments but of the native populations as well, a real hindrance. These restrictions lapsed after, in respect of the enemy Powers, but the end of the War they were renewed by the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye as far as Belgium, France, Portugal and Japan were concerned. Italy and the United States, though they signed the treaty, did not ratify it. Belgium, France and Portugal are no less interested than ourselves in getting rid of the economic restrictions imposed by this treaty, and the only question is of the way in which Japan may be met in order to induce her to waive her rights in that area.
There are certain other countries who were not participants in the War or in the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye but who, it may be presumed, still retain their old rights under the Berlin and Brussels Acts, namely, the three Scandinavian countries, Holland and Spain. Considering our close trade relations with those Scandinavian countries and the smallness of their trade with tropical Africa, I should have thought that it was not impossible at the first favourable opportunity to snake some trade bargain with them to waive their rights in this respect. The same thing could also be done with Holland and Spain; it is simply a matter of facing the fact that certain countries have rights which have their value, which cannot be simply brushed aside, but which can afford scope
for reasonable bargaining, where we can give concessions, whether they be economic or of any other kind.
The same reasoning applies to the restrictions imposed upon us in Tanganyika, Togoland and the Cameroons under the Mandates. Here, if I may digress for one moment, I should like to clear up a misunderstanding which, in spite of the clear facts of the situation, continually crops up in speeches and in writing: that is the idea that we hold of these territories in some way as tenants of the League of Nations. These territories were surrendered by Germany irrevocably, just as they surrendered any other territory, at the close of the War as the price of their defeat. Those territories were surrendered to the Allied and Associated Powers, who proceeded to partition them. They did so on the understanding among themselves that these territories were to be taken over not for exploitation but for fair development in the interests of their inhabitants themselves. In order 1,o give greater security and a safer guarantee for their pledge, the pledge was to be not merely one among the Allied and Associated Powers, but one given to, the League of Nations, which was to be satisfi,ed that the undertaking was one which in the fullest sense protected the interest, welfare and future development of the inhabitants of the territories. At the same time the pledge taken differs in no essential particular from any other pledge concluded with or guaranteed by the League of Nations. It in no case created a tenure. It is open to he modified with the consent of all who have rights under it, just like any other treaty or, let me say particularly, the St. Germain-en-Laye Convention. What we have to do, with the help of the other Powers interested and of those interested on behalf of the countries themselves, is to see whether they cannot be brought into closer and more fruitful union with the countries responsible for their administration. I am quite clear that, from the point of view of the interests of the territories themselves, it is essential that this particular restriction against preference in the Mandates should be waived.
There is also another condition—the question of the rights of other members of the League of Nations. There are certain members, Japan and Germany,
who by leaving the League of Nations are, presumably, held to be willing to relinquish their rights without compensation. Others will undoubtedly have to be dealt with fairly and reasonably from the point of view of finding for them some corresponding advantage in trade or otherwise that will make up for anything that they lose. I do not believe that there is any insuperable obstacle to getting rid of the present restrictions on the development of our African territories when once we definitely make up our minds that to do so is a major part of our economic and foreign policy. That is the point which I rose in order to put before my hon. Friend. In more than one direction—for instance, in recent clauses in foreign treaties, which include mandates among territories which stand outside the most-favoured-nation clause, paving the way, my right hon. Friend opposite and myself hope, to the possibility of giving effectual preference to Palestine—he has shown that he is all in favour of a liberation of our Colonial Empire from some of the out-of-date obligations which still restrict its development. All I am suggesting is that he should go on with the good work with greater vigour and with more despatch and enlist the support of all his colleagues in seeing that that work is effectively carried out. We are entering, I believe, upon a wonderful new era of development of our Colonial Empire, an era which will mean prosperity and well-being to those populations for whom we are trustees, but which can also, and without a shadow of detriment to our primary task, result in immense benefit to British shipping and British trade.

7.10 p.m.

Dr. McLEAN: I am fortunate in having to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). I should like to make just a few remarks upon the economic situation, and I also desire to add my congratulations to the Secretary of State for his very comprehensive survey of progress in the Colonial Empire. He described the economic measures he has taken which have made this progress possible. He also described the sound economic principles on which the future development of the Colonial Empire is being planned. Great interest is taken to-day in the
development of this Empire as a means of carrying out our obligation as trustees for the native races. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) that this is of great importance. Moreover, one who reads the speech of the Secretary of State will find that the measures he has adopted also take account of the fact that the welfare of the natives is of primary concern. Another point of view, also an important one, is that this Empire provides a market for our exports.
I should like to make a few further observations on the principles now being adopted, which the Secretary of State referred to in his speech. It will be found that there has been, as my right hon. Friend said, a revolutionary change in the economic situation of the Colonial Empire owing to the measures adopted by the Government. The crisis in 1931 showed the weakness of the economic position of the Colonial Empire. Since then markets have been assured by preferences and other arrangements and in addition, as we have seen, an economic survey of the Colonial Empire has been made which will facilitate trade development. It is only by the expansion of trade that we can provide the means for raising the standard of life for the native races, and only by the measures adopted by the Government can their standard be maintained and protected from the violent fluctuations and consequent distress of past experience. Owing to the absence of assured markets and of sufficient economic information in the past, development was necessarily haphazard, and it often proved to be uneconomic, because, under the conditions which existed, there could be no coordination of production throughout the Colonial Empire. As the Secretary of State pointed out, without such information at command there could be no encouragement to grow what would profit them most, or, on the other hand, discouragement of a particular Colony from growing commodities which could not be profitable, owing to ignorance of the market conditions. In order to be in a position to give advice and guidance in these matters the Secretary of State has prepared the necessary information and taken the necessary measures.
The Survey is obviously of use to business men not only in this country but also in the Colonies, and to the Government
here as well as to the various Colonial administrations. It shows, briefly, the economic situation in each Colony and the possibilities of its trade development. The production, actual and potential, is dealt with and the question of markets is examined, as well as the labour available and the other miscellaneous factors which in the aggregate affect development. Again, as we have heard, a study of the commodities produced in various Colonies is included. It is to be noted in the first place that this Survey supplies information which the Colonial administrations could not easily obtain for themselves, and that each Colony is now enabled to see how it stands with regard to the rest of the Colonial Empire. It can ascertain, for example, what commodities it is most suited to produce and what might pay it best. It is also shown how it can select secondary products and so widen the basis of production in relation to markets available.
Again, the Survey provides information which enables Colonial administrations to prepare or revise plans and programmes of general development, coordinating all Departments. Being an annual publication it will indicate the trend in any trade development which it is essential to know, especially in what may be called long-term planning. Such plans and programmes of general development in the Colonies must be related, I think, to the possibilities of trade development and to the markets for Colonial produce. Those markets, as we have seen, have recently been assured as far as possible and trade development is thus put on a more secure basis. Further, business arrangements are assisted such as the co-operation in marketing which is now taking place in many Colonies—a most encouraging development. It might be of interest to examine briefly the nature of these colony-wide development plans. It is already recognised that there is need on the part of Colonial administrations to prepare such plans as will co-ordinate the development programmes of all departments. For example the report of the Kenya Expenditure Advisory Committee of 1933, paragraph 121, contains the following recommendation:
We have been struck by the absence of any province-wide or colony-wide plan of development activities embracing all departments. This we regard as a serious deter-
rent to organised progress which should be remedied at the earliest possible date.
This recommendation is, I believe, being carried out. In such plans the policies and programmes of development in agriculture, transport, public works, education and public health should be related to each other and all should be based upon trade and available markets, that is on the possibilities of trade development in the Colony. It has, for example, been. found by the Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies, in considering questions of educational development in a colony, that the educational programme was limited by, and had to be related to, the potentialities and possibilities of development in other directions. For instance, the nature of the education given and the numbers trained had to be related to the requirements of the colony and to the nature and extent of its probable development.
I could go into details to show how it is necessary that the nature of a technical school, for instance, should correspond to the industrial needs, and the nature of an agricultural school should correspond to the agricultural needs, of a particular colony. It will also be found that there are simiar economic conditions which determine the programmes of agricultural development, communications, public works construction, and public health work. I submit that a balanced programme of development in a colony is necessary to avoid too much expenditure in one direction while other essential work is starved. That, within my own experience, has happened in more than one country. Unbalanced development generally results in waste. The recent report on the financial and economic position of British Honduras discloses an example of development based upon an insufficient foundation of trade. The report in paragraph 233 states that there has been "failure to plan ahead," and again that the policy of development works
has resembled a succession of impulses inadequately thought out.
Until now, the Colonies have not been, in possession of information which would provide an economic basis for planning development. It will be seen that now they are not only enabled to prepare colony-wide plans but—and I would like to call the attention of the Committee specially to this important fact—that a
definite approach has been made by the Government towards a development plan for the Colonial Empire as An economic unit. The measures taken have put the development of that Empire on a solid economic foundation and the advancement of all its peoples has thus been made more secure. It must be remembered, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has said, that Colonial trade with us is complementary, that is, they supply us with raw materials in exchange for our manufactured Articles. That there is much progress in this direction is evidenced by the improved position throughout the Colonies, and by the orders placed in this country as a result of development due to the recent trade arrangements of the Government. My own constituency, happily, has had a share of these orders And much-needed employment has thus been provided.

7.22 p.m.

Major MILNER: I am sure the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of the economic survey about which so much has already been said. There are two general observations which I wish to make. First, I must express surprise and regret that so few Members on the Government side have thought it necessary or desirable to attend this Debate on our Colonial Empire to which they so frequently and so glibly refer on other occasions. During the greater part of to-day's proceedings, not more than a dozen Members on the Government side have been in their places.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he does not know, as a result of his legal experience, that when a shareholders' meeting is called and only a few shareholders attend, it shows that they are completely satisfied with the management?

Major MILNER: I am obliged for the hon. and learned Member's explanation, but I doubt whether his constituents or the constituents of other hon. Members opposite would accept it in this case. The second general observation which I was about to make concerns the great difficulty of deciding on the matters to be raised in a Debate like this, on the Colonial Office or Dominion Office Vote involving such a vast number of questions affecting territories so numerous and
populations so large. Those questions are highly technical and require an amount of detailed knowledge which few of us possess. I should have liked to refer at some length to the Kenya Report, but as a great deal has been said about it already, I only mention one point. I wish to ask whether we are to understand that the lands set apart for Europeans, and the reserves set apart for the natives in Kenya, are to remain for all time as they are settled at present. Is the native African for ever to be prevented from poking his nose into the highlands, which, we understand, represent the better part of that country and which have been allocated to the Europeans.
I want, further, to ask a question concerning an Ordinance recently promulgated in the. Gold Coast Colony relating to seditious offences. It is a curious thing, and one which requires explanation, that not only in this country but throughout a large portion of the Empire so much interest is being taken in the subject of so-called sedition and so many steps appear to be considered necessary by the Government to alter and strengthen the law on the subject. I understand that the recent ordinance in the Gold Coast Colony is founded on a similar ordinance in Kenya. I wish to know whether alterations have been made, are being made or are likely to be made in the law regarding sedition in any of the other territories coming under the Colonial Office administration. I submit that the Gold Coast ordinance is an intolerable piece of legislation for these so-called enlightened days. In many respects it resembles the Incitement to Disaffection Bill now before a Committee of the House of Commons, but it contains a preliminary paragraph prohibiting the importation into the Colony of any newspaper, book or document, which in the opinion of the Government contains seditious works or writings. That provision does not appear in the Bill now before Parliament. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman when he replies will tell us what has made this ordinance necessary. Many people both in the Colony and in this country take a serious objection to it on the ground that it constitutes a grave menace to public liberty and that it is unnecessary and some explanation is due to this Committee.
The second section of the ordinance is drafted in terms resembling one of the Clauses of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take the same steps as the Attorney-General has thought it right to take on behalf of the Government in connection with the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. The ordinance, as drafted, provides that it shall be an offence to be in possession of seditious documents and puts the onus on the accused person of proving to the satisfaction of the court that at the time when the documents were found in his possession, he did not know the nature of the contents. We all know that the onus in all these matters should be on the prosecution and not on the defence, and I suggest that this ordinance should be altered in the same way as the Incitement to Disaffection Bill has been altered in Committee upstairs so that the onus shall be placed upon the prosecution of proving seditious intent. Under Section 3 an innocent receiver of alleged seditious documents can be found guilty and be made subject to the penalties under the ordinance if, although the documents may have been sent to him without his knowledge and consent, he does not on receipt of them forthwith hand them over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station. Such an ordinance ought not to be brought into force in any British Colony. The ordinance is an extremely bad testimonial to the conduct of affairs in the Colonies for which Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman in particular are responsible. I know of no reason for such ordinances. I do not know what the Government anticipate may happen, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to have them looked into.
Another question to which I desire to refer, which was raised in another place a little time ago without, I am afraid, a great deal of satisfaction, is the "Discovery" Expedition Committee and the Research Fund which was set up 12 or 14 years ago to provide money for research in Antarctic regions with a view to preventing the extermination of certain species of whales from which valuable oil is obtained. That committee has done excellent work since it was set up. It is composed of a number of scientific gentlemen who have devoted a great deal of time and effort to it. The funds have been obtained by the taxation of vessels
engaged in whaling operations, some belonging to other nations, and I am told that a little over a year ago between £300,000 and £400,000 was still in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of carrying on these researches. We on this side try to be long-sighted in these matters. We think that research is a valuable thing and that every effort should be made in the Antarctic and elsewhere to carry out research into everything that may advance the welfare of the human race. The right hon. Gentleman apparently, does not take that view, because in the early part of last year he decided to suspend the operations of the committee and not to engage in a further expedition.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I never decided to suspend the operations of the committee, which has sat throughout, and I decided very long ago that the "Discovery" was to go on.

Major MILNER: The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of getting up and making interruptions, but I put it to him whether in January, 1933, as was stated in another place and was not denied, the right hon. Gentleman did not decide for the time being that no further expedition should be undertaken and that the operations of the committee should be wholly or in part suspended?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No.

Major MILNER: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is true that some months later he decided that a further expedition might go out, and I believe that it is now in the Antarctic regions. According to my information, the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, had previously thought it wise to limit the work of that committee. However, I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions on this matter. Has he any intention of suspending the operations of the committee? The whaling industry is worth something like £4,000,000 a year to this country, and there is still to be done a great deal of research which would be of value to the industry and to this country. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the money which has come from taxation for this purpose, and which amounts to £300,000 or £400,000? In looking at the ordinance which originally set up the fund, it is clear
to me that it was set up on taxation levied primarily for the purpose of research. The right hon, Gentleman on at least one occasion has used money from the fund for some other expedition not having relation to whaling research. I am further told that sums are paid year by year from this money to the Falkland Islands. That amounted in 1922 to £5,000, and the contribution has now been increased to £9,000. I am informed that that money is paid to the Falkland Islands to recoup them for their expenses of administering the dependencies of the Islands. As these dependencies spend in the ordinary way only £5,000 a year, it is surprising that the Falkland Islands should be paid £9,000 in respect of them. How long is that drain upon this fund, which was established for a particular purpose, to continue at the same rate, and has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of using the money in the fund for any other purposes?
There is also the question of the late Chairman of the Committee. I understand that the gentleman who originated the Committee because of his experiences during the War was Mr. Darnley, who presided with great success since the Committee was set up in 1922 until a few months ago when, for some reason, the right hon. Gentleman summarily dismissed him without consultation or previous discussion. At the time no reason was given. An explanation was vouchsafed a little time ago in another place to the effect that this gentleman, who had rendered such valuable service, who was not time-expired and who had the confidence of all concerned in the industry and of the Committee over which he presided, had then left the ordinary Colonial Office service, and it was desirable that someone who was in closer touch with the work should preside over the Committee. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether the real reason was not that the right hon. Gentleman had decided to use for other purposes the funds contributed for a particular purpose, and that he not unnaturally anticipated some objection from this gentleman who had presided for so long and with such success over the work of the Committee. If that were the reason, the right hon. Gentleman might have dealt with the matter in some other way. It does not seem to be in accord-
ance with custom in these matters for an officer who has served for so many years with complete success to receive a letter which practically amounted to dismissal at comparatively short notice, no reason being stated for many months afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman behaved generously in regard to some financial recompense for a period, but beyond that he treated Mr. Darnley with somewhat scant courtesy.
I now desire to refer to the representation of the people of Gibraltar on their local council. I understand that the Governor has an executive council, which is nominated, and that there is a city council, set up in 1922, when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) laid it down that an endeavour should be made to bring the social conditions of Gibraltar up to something like the social conditions in this country. The city council was set up with that end in view, five members being nominated and four elected. It seems to me that the time has come to make some alteration in that council. It is not right that there should be a city council running the affairs of Gibraltar upon which the people through their elected representatives have no power. The only people who have power are the Governor and his executive council, which is wholly nominated, and the majority of the city council, which is nominated by the Governor. One way in which the matter could be dealt with would be for the Governor to include representatives of the working people among his nominations to the city council. There were at one time a number of elected Labour representatives, but at all times elected representatives have been in a minority. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give his consideration to that problem and to give the people of Gibraltar the right to elect their own representatives and to govern their own city.
The only remaining matter to which I desire to refer is one which I have some diffidence in putting before the Committee, but I think it my duty to do so. I noted in the "Times" in December last that the right hon. Gentleman had been so fortunate as to be presented with a portrait of himself painted by an eminent painter, Mr. Oswald Birley. It was presented to him by the inhabitants of
Mauritius. The spokesman of Mauritius is reported as having said that the right hon. Gentleman was the great champion for the Crown Colonies at the Ottawa Conference, and that Mauritius had occasion to be grateful to him for bringing them within the orbit of Imperial unity and co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said:
If the new sugar preferences which had been given them put new life and hope into Mauritius and other great sugar colonies, they had not been slow to reciprocate,
Evidently the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that his portrait has been presented to him by the inhabitants of Mauritius by reason of the services he rendered to them—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This is a personal point. Is the hon. and gallant Member, after all these months, making a personal charge against me, that I did a corrupt deal with the people of Mauritius and that the presentation portrait, which I did not know anything about beforehand, was done as part of a, plan to corrupt me?

Major MILNER: I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice that I was going to raise this point and precisely what I was going to say, and he will do me the justice to admit that I have not indicated privately or publicly any such suggestion, and he has no business to put it forward here. He knows quite well that no such suggestion either has been made or was in my mind to make. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a Regulation, No. 59, of the Colonial Office which forbids the receipt of gifts from Colonies or inhabitants thereof by Colonial Governors or Colonial officers, and when put a question to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday he informed me that that regulation was strictly enforced, and that he would not permit Governors or Colonial officers to receive such gifts. How does it come about that he is less scrupulous in that matter—and I do not say it offensively—than he permits his officers to be? I make no allegation against the right hon. Gentleman—quite the contrary—in regard to his personal honour, but I do suggest that he was a little lacking in discretion or wisdom to accept this portrait in those circumstances. Is every Colony to be permitted to make a gift to the Secretary of State for the time, being, whether the right hon. Gentleman or another
Secretary of State, and are Governors and others meanwhile to be forbidden to accept such gifts? The regulation to which I have referred is a perfectly proper one and one which, if I may be allowed to say so, the right hon. Gentleman is right in seeing strictly enforced, but I submit that he ought to be the first to set an example in that regard. He may say, "I should offend the people of Mauritius if I refused ungraciously to accept the gift which they desired to make to me." But all that the right hon. Gentleman had to say was, "I am very sorry, and I much appreciate it, but Regulation 59, which we strictly enforce, does not permit those who serve under me to accept such gifts, and I must not accept them, though I appreciate the thought underlying the offer." I repeat that I make no allegation against the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Oh.

Major MILNER: The right hon. Gentleman may say say "Oh," but there is no one more touchy than he is—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am when the hon. and gallant Gentleman is attacking my honour.

Major MILNER: I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman's honour in any sense of the word. I am giving him the opportunity to give an explanation of a matter which has caused some little comment, and I give this to the right hon. Gentleman also, that if he can give an explanation which is reasonable, and which the good sense of the House accepts, no one will be more pleased than I, but the matter is one obviously which ought to be raised and on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to welcome an opportunity of making a statement.

7.50 p.m.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: With regard to the last point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), there is all the difference in the world between a public servant and a Member of His Majesty's Government, and it is impossible to imagine that a whole country should be restricted from recording its appreciation, in the person of a Minister, of the policy of the Home Government by making him a presentation portrait.
My only reason for addressing the Committee is that it so happens that just over three weeks ago I was present at the Baraza or native Parliament of the Kavirondo when this self-same Charter report, which has been so much discussed to-day, was explained to the native chiefs. The natives were extremely anxious that their point of view should be heard by this House, and I am going to put as faithfully as I can that which I heard. The Baraza was presided over by the District Commissioner, assisted by the Provincial Commissioner, and immense pains were taken to explain the main lines of the report to the assembled chiefs. I must say that I was both disappointed and surprised by the way in which it was received by the chiefs at first. By common consent this report is extremely favourable to native interests, but what I heard, if it did not show immediate appreciation of the report by the natives, proved at least that they are perfectly free in their expressions of opinion and do not hesitate to say exactly what they think. There were quite a number of speeches, but the burden of a good many of them was this: "Once upon a time there was plenty of room in this country, but now it is quite full. What shall we do if a lot of whites come in as well?" I thought to myself that the reason why there was so much space in the Kavirondo country a few years ago was because in those days famine and pestilence alternated if indeed they did not come together. The Kavirondo were the natural prey of blood-spearing expeditions by neighbouring warlike tribes such as the Nandi and the Massai, and they themselves waged war among each other from hill top to hill top; and I thought to myself that it was a great pity that the assembled natives were not taught to realise more that if the land is now full and there is plenty, it is thanks to the Pax Britannica which has been established there and to the magnificent administration which Kenya now enjoys.
The Committee has been made aware by previous speeches that this Kavirondo district includes the goldfield of Kakemega. It would be too much to expect the natives to appreciate at once the immense potential benefit of the goldfield to the Colony as a whole, but some of the speeches made at the Baraza really
took my breath away. It was actually suggested by some of the speakers that all the whites employed in the goldfield should be compelled to reside in the township of Kakemega, that all the valuable machinery should be abandoned at night, and that under native supervision the whites should all go back to Kakemega to sleep, to be let out to their work, 10, 20, or 30 miles away in the morning. It would perhaps, as I said before, be too much to expect that the natives should appreciate—

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present

Brigadier-General SPEARS: When I was interrupted, I was saying that it seemed to me that it was too much to expect that the natives should appreciate the potential benefits of the goldfield of Kakemega to the Colony, but the actual benefits are evident enough. Large sums are flowing into the country, and the compensation given is, as my right hon. Friend said, on the most generous scale. Ten pounds per annum per acre for fallow land is actually paid in compensation, and I wonder where in England farmers could obtain that amount for their land. The utmost care has been taken not to disturb the natives. It has been stated, and it is perfectly true, that not a single native has been disturbed, and you see on the field—I saw myself—important buildings, permanent European buildings, crowded together, against the dictates of both common sense and hygiene, so as not to interfere with a couple of reed huts which would, in the ordinary course of events, be abandoned by the natives within a couple of years.
I would like to warn my right hon. Friend that conditions are perhaps being made if anything too difficult for the workers on the goldfields. A year ago there were over 1,000 whites in the township of Kakemega. To-day there are only 300. The programme of works imposed on the companies is 19 times heavier than it was a year ago. The result is that the companies simply cannot afford to carry out the prospection of the field except under the most
favourable possible conditions. The Baraza went on for some time and then the whites all withdrew and a chief took over the chairmanship. When the sitting
was resumed under the chairmanship of the district commissioner, the commissioners set about with the utmost care and tact to find out what was at the back of the native mind to find out where the shoe really pinched, and presently they got it. They found that what the natives really apprehended was that when a white man lived in the place and built himself a house that land must inevitably belong to him. That is what happens in their own case, and it was seeing buildings going up that made them fear that the land was going to be lost to them for ever. As soon as that point was made clear, it became very easy sailing indeed, and it was possible to explain to them, and they very readily understood, that the new leases which it is proposed to give to some of the companies would in fact be a charter to the natives, a proof that the land did in fact belong to them. When they found that they could actually obtain copies of these leases, there was real jubilation, and they were completely and absolutely satisfied. There was a great demand by the chiefs to buy the Morris Carter Report and other large volumes lying on the table, the buyers no doubt anticipating a sensational return with a volume on the head of each one of a. long string of wives.
But as I left and drove through a country teeming with people—there were some districts with a population of over 1,000 per square mile, which is something like the population of Belgium, the most thickly-populated country in Europe—I could not help thinking of my own constituents. There they were, these natives, every man well fed, every man secure, in fact all of them possessing those very things which so many of our people at home would like. Yet, when all is said and done, this security, this prosperity enjoyed by the natives, is entirely due to the protection afforded them by the British people, so many of whom are on the dole to-day. I thought to myself: What do our Colonies give us for all we give them? The Colonial Secretary described, and it was most interesting to listen to him, the way in which he is increasing and developing the links between the Colonies and ourselves, but I do submit that these Crown Colonies can do something for us that they are not doing to any extent, and that is to take more of our own people. Take,
for instance, Uganda. It is a magnificent territory, and yet I do not believe that there are more than 50 or 60 white farmers in the whole country. That is absurd. It is a country in which white people can perfectly well live. Take, again, Tanganyika. English people do not settle in Tanganyika because there is no sense of security about it. There is a sort of idea about that the country may be handed back to Germany one day. I do not believe for a moment that we have any such thought in our minds, but it ought to be asserted that we have not, and, if the Colonial Secretary will do so, it will do a very great deal to encourage English settlers there.
I would like the Colonial Secretary to answer a specific question about Tanganyika. I was told on very good authority that the German Government are subsidising very heavily German settlers who are going there. Is that so or is it not? Personally, it strikes me that it would be a very good idea if some of these powerful societies which look after German-Jewish refugees were told that there is plenty of room in Tanganyika for some of these German citizens who have been so unfairly thrown out of their own country. I think there would be a certain poetic justice in that, and I should like to see a colony of German Jewish refugees in an ex-German Colony. But there is plenty of room for more white settlers in Kenya as well. It is perfectly true that some of the white estates are perhaps too big and would have to be broken up. I think also the question of native reserves ought to be gone into. The Morris Carter Report generously gives additional thousands of square miles to the natives. A right hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Liberal benches, pointed out that probably in a few years that land will not suffice. If it will not suffice, it will be because of the overstocking of the land by the natives. That is absolutely a major question in Kenya to-day. The wealthier the natives, and they are becoming very wealthy, the bigger their herds. They have enormous quantities of cattle, which are quite useless from the point of view of meat, and very bad milk producers, and the country is full of these enormous herds which put nothing back into the land, and all that will happen, unless the natives are taught husbandry, is that
they will waste more land and yet more land. Then there is the question of the extent to which forests are being destroyed. When a. native wants honey he sets fire to a tree and often causes serious forest fires, so that much destruction is done.
I do not think it is the fault of the Colonies that they do not take more of our people. I think it is our own fault. We have given the Colonies a superb administration. Anybody going out to these countries will realise how good it is, but to them and to the white settlers it does seem a little as if England were full of people with soft hearts and also soft heads, a sort of Archdeacon Owens endlessly multiplied. The building of an African Colony is a, question of cooperation between whites and blacks. Both have their part to play, and we may be very proud indeed of the protection we have afforded to the natives in our Colonies. Anybody going there will see that the Europeans and the natives live in perfect amity together. We should not forget that if the Colonies are to play a proper part in the Empire they can only do it if they have a strong white backing. I do not wish to go into the economic question which has been so ably dealt with by others, but I thought, in particular, that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) was extremely interesting. We have to do something because the fact is that Japanese imports to Kenya, for instance, for last year were up on the year before by 51 per cent. I venture to submit, in conclusion, that the line pursued by the Colonial Secretary should be vigorously endorsed by this House and, above all things, that an effort should be made to find room for more of our own people in our Colonies. There is room for them there, there is a place for people who could make a modest livelihood over there who to-day are eating out their hearts hopelessly on the dole.

8.13 p.m.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not propose to take up the time of this Committee by dealing at any length with the speeches we have just heard. I would like to say in answer to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) that so far as Uganda is concerned he
must abandon the idea of populating it with white people. It is essentially a plantation country. There is reasonable room in Kenya and Tanganyika, and I would entirely agree with him to the extent that there is still a certain amount of hesitation among British people as to the continuity of British authority in Tanganyika. The sooner they disabuse themselves of this foolish idea the better for all concerned. It has been the subject of pronouncements by several Secretaries of State, and has been pointed out to them on various other occasions. I myself, though I do not say that I can speak with authority, yet speaking with knowledge, have pointed out that this mandate was an irremovable mandate from outside, and that the King exercised sovereignty over Tanganyika as much as over any of the possessions of the Crown. The mandate is subject to certain restrictions, we have to make a report and give certain undertakings, but the authority of His Majesty the King stands supreme. One has only to look at the postage stamp to see His Majesty's head on it, and that ought to be enough to let people know that we do not change about in these matters. I hope the Secretary of State may at some time see fit to make another and perhaps even more definite statement on that subject, as it would perhaps relieve the minds of some, although I think people are beginning to realise that no British Government, whatever its political complexion, would be so foolish as to hand over this country to another nation which has not proved itself in any way so well qualified as we are to govern these countries. I am sure that all in this House are agreed upon that.
Some of us listened with great pain to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) in connection with the portrait presented by the people of Mauritius to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He suggested that he wanted to speak delicately, but I do not think he measured delicately what he had to say, because although we knew the point he was trying to make I am afraid it was made in a very unfortunate way. As a matter of fact, hardly anybody has heard of this presentation, and in any case, when a body of people in a country offer to present a gentleman with
his portrait, it is a complete stretch of the imagination to call it a gift in the ordinary sense of the word. It is merely an appreciation of services rendered. After all, all that he said in his speech was that at Ottawa we had been able to arrange a good deal for the Colonies and that there was no doubt the Colonies were going to respond. I think it is very regrettable that a personal matter of that kind should have been dragged in front of the House, and that the way in which it was done—however unintentional, because I do not believe it was intentionally meant to be hurtful—should hurt. I am certain that my hon. Friends on the Opposition benches know that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of high honour and with a high sense of duty, and that he would never allow himself to become involved improperly in a matter of this kind.
We have listened to an extraordinarily interesting survey of what has been going on throughout the Colonial Empire. I have had the privilege of spending three months in East African territory, after having worked some nine years here with the Joint East African Board which advises the Colonial Office on economic matters, and I can assure the Committee that it was an interesting experience to see how remarkably well government is carried on in those distant parts of the Empire and the type of men who are responsible. There may be a black sheep among them here and there—even in Parliament there may be one or two—but anyone who has been out there cannot fail to have been struck with admiration at the devoted service rendered by the servants of the Crown in the various Colonies where they are working. We ought to make them realise that even though criticism is at times levelled against them there is no suggestion of lack of confidence in them. The loyalty and devotion of those who are risking their lives and their health in this great service, is fully recognised, whatever party may be in power here at home.
It is of vital importance to have a real survey of the whole economic position of the Empire such as is given us in the wonderful book which has been produced. With the facts concentrated as they are there one begins to realise how one colony can work in with another and how knowledge acquired in one corner of the tropics is invaluable in another. I do
not know whether it would be in order to talk about it, but I visited the Amani research station out there, and was interested in the information that had been gleaned as to how best to combat plant disease. For instance, an insect pest which was attacking the coffee plant. They chloroformed a number of insects and then injected a certain virus into them, and those which survived the operation were later let loose on the coffee plants, and it was found that they no longer injured the plants. As a result of the knowledge thus gained a preparation has been made which will serve as a protection for the plant. That is one instance to show the immense value of study on the spot. Again to-day we are beginning to look at industries as not purely individual and separate industries but with a feeling that all those connected with one industry should work cooperatively together. If those engaged in the production of coffee, tea, sisal, wattle, or whatever it may be, work and cooperate together and get in touch with their opposite numbers in other territories, and they co-operate together one has a very different story from that which has to be told when they are all pulling each other to pieces. We get combined operations such as have already proved of immense value in this country.
Another fact which is gradually dawning on the East African territories is that they are one economic unit. The visitor there never knows which particular territory he is in, because there is no marked boundaries between them, and no distinctive features in the different countries. They are one economic unit and they work into each other, and the more we help them to work together as one unit the better it is going to be. What they need is political rest and economic progress. It is said by some that we are always piling political troubles on them, though it might also be said they sometimes seek them themselves, but what they need is political rest, and that is why I think the Morris Carter Report is so very valuable, I will not say as a soporific, because it is more than that, in dealing with so many of the causes of anxiety. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle spoke of having attended a gathering of natives.
I was in Kakamega last year and before I left England I had the duty of speaking in support of the attitude of the
Government in regard to some unfounded statements that had been made. As a Member of this House I went out to make an inquiry on the spot into the position, and what struck me was how well the colonial officers responded. They arranged a meeting with the tribes, and the Commissioner said to me, "I am going to sit beside you, but I am going to say nothing. I have arranged that you shall be correctly interpreted right through." I had an hour and a half's talk with the chiefs. They certainly have a way of doing things out there. They put me in a big chair and the Commissioner sat in a smaller one. The chiefs sat in still smaller chairs, and the natives stood all round.
The question of the goldfields came up. It was a matter of simple question and answer and I was impressed with how satisfied they were at having a market for their produce and with all that was going on, with the exception of one question; they were rather doubtful about the leases. I did my best to explain that to them. We have heard from an hon. Member to-day that afterwards it was more fully explained. It was a point which they wished to have explained to them. They were glad to have people there. They were not worrying about the disturbance of their shambas. I was standing in one of the gold-mining districts and I looked round and I said, "What are the peculiarly fertile spots that I see there?" The reply was, "That is a part that has been dug up by prospectors. It has been filled in again. It never had such a digging before, and the result is that it is much more fertile than the rest." We must not forget that compensation of something like £10 per acre was paid in respect of that land. The native is quite a simple person; as they say in Yorkshire, "There is a deal of human nature about folk." If a hole is dug in the ground, it is always the worst goat of the flock you find get in there with its legs broken in the morning and having to be paid for.
The natives are thoroughly satisfied with what is going on, and what we have to do is to help them in the matter. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) referred to paramountcy. I thought that matter was settled, and I daresay he thought it was, too. I would like to read from the report of the Joint Select Com-
mittee a few words which settled that question. They were drawn up by a Member of the party now on the Opposition side of the House. The recommendation was very simple. It said:
The whole position may be summed up briefly by saying that the interest of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population should not be subordinated to those of a minority belonging to another race however important in itself.
I hope that is a final settlement of the matter on those terms. They were accepted all round at the time, and everyone who has looked into it realises that it puts a perfectly fair position.
As regards the Morris Carter Report. I said a week or two ago that it has been a very good thing to have a report of that kind. I have heard some criticisms. It is rather difficult for people to adjust their minds, because of what they have said before. They do not like to give in. Everyone who has met the three commissioners and has talked to them, as well as having read that wonderful product of theirs, must realise that they are very able, fair-minded and just men. If they had not had experience they would never have been able to frame a report that is of such infinite value as is this report. Everyone must join in expressing appreciation of the very able way in which that report has been produced. I do not speak as one who has studied it word for word, but I have done my best to learn the main points, particularly with the help of the White Paper. There is only one thing on which I feel I must say a word. There has been criticism of the view of His Majesty's Government in connection with the board. Almost everybody agrees that the functions of the board are one and the functions of the Government are another, as laid out in the report. The one difference is that it is considered that the Government have made a mistake in objecting to having the board set up in London. I am satisfied they are right. It is the height of folly for us to attempt to administer a question of this kind from London. You cannot possibly do it. You do not know the circumstances, and you are not in touch with the people. You must be in touch to be able to do a thing of that kind. I have seen the working of the board, and I have myself been chairman of an advisory board. I have seen how misunderstandings may arise. However well reports are brought
home, you cannot grasp the thing in the same way. I know what will be felt out there; the foundations of confidence will be shaken among the white settlers in respect of the people at home, and the confidence of the natives will be shaken in anything that is proposed. They will say, "You cannot trust your own Government."
I was sorry to hear the casual remarks about the Government of Kenya, which is a Government of His Majesty's officials assisted and advised by local people. It is not an independent Government, any more than that of Uganda or Tanganyika. The unofficial element is rather stronger, but that is all. It is a Government upon which we can rely, because it is composed of the soundest and most experienced men in our Civil Service under the direction of the Colonial Office. People talk of the Colonial Office as though. it were something curious. It is a most wonderful product, and the further we get away from these shores the prouder we become of it. It is most important that we should realise what splendid men the Governors and the Commissioners are. Let me add that neither this Committee nor the public of England realise what a fine set of people the great majority of the white settlers in Kenya are. I have stayed in their houses and have seen much of their self-denial during the terrible crises through which they have passed. The women have faced those crises with the men, with the same British spirit with which our people of every class always face their difficulties.
In praising the officials out there, one cannot refrain from giving a meed of praise to the settlers, whether they are planters, farmers or commercial men, and also to the fine set of natives. I was never more impressed with natives than I was when I went through East Africa and saw the fine and noble bearing of the native African. There is a great deal of material there to be used, among the loyal natives, the loyal settlers, and, above all, the local Government officials. We can be proud that we have such a fine body of men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) referred to a point upon which I have been working for years, namely, what is known as the Congo Basin Treaties. There is no doubt East Africa wants to have them modified, but we
have yet to learn how the business world at home views the proposed change. We have to be careful to realise the difficulties and obligations of those treaties. We do not know how far they are going to benefit East Africa, or what exactly the reactions will be on the trade of the Empire, but I hope very much that the way will be clear to deal with these matters. I am afraid I have detained the Committee rather longer than I intended, but, having been to East Africa, I felt that I should like to say a few words on that subject.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I desire to ask your permission, Sir Dennis, to raise a point of Order with respect to the matters with which we are dealing, or are entitled to deal, under this Vote. There is a desire on the part of a number of Members to introduce in this Debate the question of Palestine, and I am wondering whether you would be good enough to reconsider the Ruling which you gave some little time ago with regard to that matter. The important point with which it is desired to deal is the question of immigration into the country and the extension el the possibilities in that direction; and I would submit, with the greatest respect, that those Members who desire to speak on that subject would be in order under the Vote which is at present being discussed. It is not a question of defence, and it is not a question relating to any of the other matters which are contained in Vote 9, for Colonial and Middle Eastern services. In these circumstances, I would respectfully ask whether you could see your way to permit a debate to take place on that and kindred subjects relating to Palestine.

The CHAIRMAN: Since I gave my previous Ruling, 1 have taken some trouble to look up the precedents on this matter, and I am quite clear on the position to-night with regard to a, debate on Palestine, and particularly on the question of immigration, to which the hon. Member refers. The view seems to be taken by some hon. Members that, on the Vote containing the salary of the Secretary of State, anything under his Department can be discussed if it is not something for which a specific sum of money is set down in another Vote; but that is not the whole rule, nor is it a correct statement of the rule. On the
salary of the Secretary of State, we cannot discuss a particular sub-department of his Department if that sub-department is a sub-department to itself, all expenditure in connection with which would come under a separate Vote. In this case there is in the Colonial Office a Department known as the Middle Eastern Department, the expenditure of which comes under a separate Vote for Middle Eastern Services, and it is under that Vote that all expenditure would come in connection with Palestine or Transjordania. In these circumstances, I think it is quite clear that no debate on any matters connected with Palestine generally can take place on the Vote which is now under discussion.

8.40 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: My name appears on the Order Paper to-day attached to a Motion to reduce the Vote by £5 in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is not to be inferred from that that I accuse my right hon. Friend of any misfeasance or impropriety in his position, nor is it intended in any way to raise any serious criticism. It is merely intended to give me a locus standi for the purpose of drawing attention to a matter which in itself is of small compass, but which I think is one of serious principle. I understand that, in my temporary absence for the purpose of obtaining nutrition after sitting here for four hours, the matter has been touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), but I understand that he has not gone into any details regarding it, and, therefore, I propose to say what I have to say de novo. What I wanted to do was to elicit information from the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the present position of the "Discovery" Expedition Committee Fund, the proposed application of the fund, and the future programme of the committee.
The matter was raised by two Noble Lords in another place on the 2nd May, 1934, and it was gone into at considerable length. I do not think it is necessary to go over the whole of the ground again, but, as I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds has not gone into the history of the matter, it is rather important that it
should be understood. The "Discovery" Expedition Committee was set up after the War to undertake what was necessary to prevent the extinction of whales. Apparently, during the War, there was a great run on whales for the purpose of obtaining oil and so on. A great number were killed, and there was a grave danger of their being exterminated. A committee was formed of very distinguished scientific people, with the object of ascertaining what could be done to investigate the matter and find out how the whales could be preserved.
The committee, on being set up after the War, required money, and money was raised by imposing licences on whaling ships, whether foreign or British, which were doing business in British waters, particularly in the neighbourhood of the Falkland Islands or their dependencies. A large sum of money was raised, and a definite undertaking was given by the Colonial Office that the funds would be credited to a special fund for research and development. It must be understood that the ships licensed were not only British ships, but to a large extent foreign ships, particularly Norwegian ships, and, therefore, foreign countries are very much interested in the formation of the fund, and, naturally, have raised questions as to what was going to be done with the large amount obtained from these licences. They were told quite definitely by the Colonial Office that this money would be set aside and put to a special fund for research and development. Details of the written communications were given in the House of Lords. When the money had been raised, the ship "Discovery" was acquired, an expedition VMS sent out, and very valuable investigations were made. In 1933 the fund, even after the expenditure on the first "Discovery" expedition, stood at £350,000—a very considerable sum. Another expedition is in progress; I understand that its operations will not be finished until June, 1935; but, even after that expense has been incurred, there will be, it is estimated, about £300,000 in hand.
So far the payments which have been made out of the fund are entirely right and proper, but we now come to a matter which is more questionable. I understand that £9,000 has been paid to the general administration of the Falkland Islands,
which seems to me to be extraordinary, and £10,000 towards the expense of the British expedition to Graham Land under Mr. Rymill. These two payments seem to me to be outside the original scope of the fund and not in accordance with the terms governing its formation. It would be bad if it concerned only British subjects, but a number of foreigners are concerned, and I think the credit of the British Government is involved. There is a feeling of anxiety and uncertainty. I do not know whether the original object of the fund is exhausted. I hardly think it can be, because I see there is a new Whaling Industry Bill coming down from another place. It may well be that money can be properly expended in that direction. But even if it be exhausted, I certainly think we ought to adopt the practice which is adopted in the case of charities. If an original charity fails, another scheme is drawn up which is called a cy pres scheme, as near to the original intention of the donor as may be, and the Attorney-General puts it into operation. I certainly think, if the original object of the fund has failed, it ought to be earmarked for some similar scientific purpose and not dissipated on ordinary expenditure like the general expenditure of the Falkland Islands.
Simultaneously with this change of policy has come the successor of Mr. Darnley, a Colonial Office official, who was chairman of the fund for some considerable time. I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds has dealt with that. I certainly should not have raised this question as a personal matter, and I do not wish to do so, but it has been suggested that in some way the two are connected. I cannot think it is so, because I am sure the Colonial Secretary would have kept his eyes on the matter and seen that it was carried out. I hope he will let us have some time to-night an answer to the questions that I have put.

8.48 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry to intrude in the Debate at this hour, but it seems to me that the speeches that we have heard from the Secretary of State and the ex-Secretary of State were frankly deplorable. There was an ancient distich which seems rather applicable to
this subject written originally by a famous historian:
While ladling butter from alternate tubs,
 Stubbs butters Freeman, Freeman butters Stubbs.
Certainly they were very appreciative of each other, but the parallel is not quite exact. I do not think I at all like the views that were expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. The duty of the Colonial Secretary and of the Colonial Office—the end all their existence—is not to promote British trade, not to promote even trade with the Colonies. They are not judged by that standard. They should be judged by the standard of administration in the Colonies and whether that administration is directed towards the welfare of the inhabitants of those Colonies, and not to the fostering of British or any other trade. Moreover, at a time when there is no unemployment in the Colonial Empire but a great deal of unemployment at home, I think it ought not to be the object of British statesmen to increase the development of the Colonies and to increase the work that is to be thrown upon the inhabitants of those Colonies.
It is not useful to use British money, which could be spent in the mother country, in the Colonies in providing more work for people who already have more than they can manage. I know that is a very unpopular point of view. I remember raising it long ago in connection with the bridge over the Zambesi, which was to cost £1,500,000, or it may be more—it was our money that was being spent, and we should never see it back—making the nigger in Northern Rhodesia work under particularly bad conditions in the Zambesi valley and, far from being a triumph for British statesmanship, it was an admirable example of what the Colonial Secretary should not do.
But the real test goes much further than that. Our aim and object in all Colonial territories is to use our power and our experience for the development of the native races, and I just hate to hear year after year speeches from the Secretary of State directed solely to this one point of the development of trade with the Colonies. It is not our principal business, and I should like to get on future occasions from Secretaries of State for the Colonies views on certain other points of more vital importance to
the natives and, in the long run, to our reputation. Let me deal with one or two of these.
I think the question of representative Government in the various Colonies is a matter of enormous importance about which the Colonial Office ought to have a consistent policy, perhaps a secondary matter to education, but representation and education are intimately linked. My fear is that, so far as education goes, throughout the whole of the Colonal Empire it is hampered first and foremost by a sort of passionate desire to keep the native everywhere as he is to-day, to keep him, in fact, an admirable servant. I sometimes think if we could go back 60 years to the time when compulsory universal education was being advocated in this country, if the House of Commons which passed that Measure in 1870 could have seen the development of the intelligence and the power of the working-class, if they could have seen this Labour party in the House of Commons, they would have been more insistent than they were in keeping the working-class uneducated. Exactly the same is being felt about India. We have been told over and over again, if only Macaulay had not been such a fool as to teach the natives English, how much easier a proposition we should have had in governing India. There is that difficulty with all sorts of education. Directly you educate people you get them capable of thinking, and, worse still, capable of criticism.
We had from the right hon. Gentleman to-day an admirable example of the natural objections of bureaucracy and particularly of the Secretary of State a criticism exactly like that of Dr. Goebbels, who said, "Welcome to sensible sound, constructive criticism but—." Naturally every administration hates criticism as it does the devil. If you are going to educate the blacks in Africa and the natives in Palestine and anybody anywhere, you will only store up trouble for yourself. If you put, first Land foremost, the avoidance of trouble, do not educate. If, on the other hand, you realise that the whole of British history has been educating first yourselves and then other people into being civilised, reasonable beings, you have to put up with the increased trouble which comes from education.
So far the Colonial Secretary has not taken the trouble to attend to my speech, but possibly I may have his attention when I now come to the question of representative government. This question is connected with education. If you are to have representation, and ultimately a people taking some part in governing themselves, it is a question, first of all, of educating them to think connectedly, to read a newspaper, and to organise even in their trade unions. It is no use thinking that you can start representative government unless you have, first of all, elementary education in reading, thinking, and organising. I do not want the Colonial Office to carry on the policy which they have carried on in the past of granting representative Parliamentary government to peoples who are not ready for it and then taking it away again directly they make a mess of it. There should be a much more definite line of progress, and I would put to the Colonial Secretary and to the Committee the point of view that you should never give representative or responsible government to any Dominion or Colony so long as they are not sufficiently educated to make proper use of it. You should judge that by considering whether there is in that Dominion or Colony a minority which does not welcome those institutions.
I will take Cyprus as an example. In Cyprus away back in 1878, in a wave of Victorian enthusiasm, we gave representative institutions. Cyprus, unfortunately, has a minority of Moslems, and to avoid the tyranny of one section of the inhabitants over the other, they provided under a responsible Governor, a system of communal representation whereby the Mohammedans voted only for Mohammedans and the orthodox Christians voted only for orthodox Christians. The result was that you got a Parliament which had more powers than this Parliament intended that it should have and government was carried on by the casting vote of the Governor. The two races always voted against each other, and the British Governor managed to carry on. That was a thoroughly bad system, and it ended up with a burst up in Cyprus and the burning of the Governor's house, and the Colonial Secretary of that day, quite rightly, took away those institutions and governed independently of any system of representation. If the principle had been laid
down that we would not have representative institutions unless we could have one general roll of electors, so that everybody represented those electors, in whatever assembly it might be, they would have considered the views of both parties, instead of having to consider the views of the extreme partisans. Here we all represent everybody. I represent people who even share the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, with the natural result that I have to modify my views even of this Government. At least, I try to modify them. Hon. Members opposite are alive to the fact that there are many working men who vote for them, and therefore they all have to moderate their views. It is impossible to be an extremist when you remember that by every form of extremity you are alienating some of the people who might vote for you, though they never do. That is the admirable system we have in this country.
If you go anywhere, to Cyprus or to Palestine, and build up an entirely alienised system of representation whereby each caste can only vote for that caste, antagonisms are fostered and a natural and responsible electorate does not exist, you run all these risks of having tyranny by the majority and terror among the minority. You have the danger even now of starting in your new Province of Sind a system of terrorism comparable with what goes on in Germany to-day. Those truths ought to be thought out by the Colonial Office. When you talk of giving representative government to Palestine there ought to be a clear idea that by so doing the Government do not set up a dangerous system of antagonism and terrorism over the minority. I am too much afraid that in many of these cases you have the man on the spot, whether in India or elsewhere, anxious not so much for the native inhabitants of the territory as to get rid of control by Parliament and even of the control of the Secretary of State.
I was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman kicked to-day at the idea of a local board in London administering native affairs in East Africa responsible only to a Privy Council which does not really exist. There is a tendency all over the world to get tired of, and angry with, criticism, and therefore they recommend those institutions as a sort of shelter behind which they can take cover.
That is the danger you have to observe, and it is all the more important that some sort of general rule should be evolved in the Colonial Office. They did admirably in Ceylon, because there they invented a form of representation and a degree of responsibility of which, I believe, Ceylon was capable of taking advantage. They did away with the silly system of communal representation. They gave there one general list of electors, and the result is that the inter-communal bitterness which used to be excessive has gone down, while the bitterness in India has gone up. Some sort of general principle about what you are to do when you give self government would be of enormous advantage all over the world, and particularly in such places as Malta, Cyprus and Palestine.
Then there is the question of education. Does the Colonial Office want to see the natives capable of thinking for themselves. The speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) was to the effect that the only way in which the native is fit to be educated is to become a better producer of goods, of which we have too much already. We do not want to educate the working classes in order to be a better instrument for employment by other people, and we do not want to educate the natives in Africa in order that they may be admirable beasts of burden and carry on generation after generation exactly the same activities which they have carried on in the past. The very meaning of the word "education" is to draw people up. I remember the Minister for Education in Palestine, a long time ago, saying to me that the real difficulty was that the native of that country wanted to get away from his present condition. That is the aim and object of all education. If you educate a native of Nazareth his one desire is to get to America, perhaps that is also true of Bethlehem. They all want to cease to be tillers of the soil and to become petty shopkeepers and, above all, Government servants, and there are plenty of openings for them in Palestine.
The real object of education is not to preserve things as they are but to make a change. I do not know whether the Colonial Office has made up its mind as to which way they intend to go, and I hope that when the Secretary of State makes a speech on Colonial Estimates
again we may have some general indication as to the intentions of the Colonial Office with regard to people who want to be educated; whether they want the natives of Africa or of the West Indies or of Palestine to become as much like us as they can. If they do are they prepared to face the fact that they will want to criticise even supreme Ministers of State. Let me now come to what is perhaps a more important matter than even education and representation—the land question. The right hon. Gentleman discovered to-day that I have not read a certain book. There is no reason why I should read it. I have never criticised the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Kenya, I am about the only person in the House who has not, although you would have thought from his speech that I was the worst villain of the piece. I do not intend to read it, life is not long enough. The right hon. Gentleman is paid to read it; he has to read it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have read your book.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh, have you? Then go up one.

The CHAIRMAN: I have not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The real question that matters in regard to the Morris Carter Report is: what are the natives going to do with the land when they get it, and how are they going to get the land? I am sorry that we have to buy the land. I do not believe in the nationalisation of land. My chief objection to nationalisation is that when the State goes into the market to buy land it has to pay twice as much for it as it is worth. That invariably happens. Are you going into this business of restoring the land to the people in Kenya by paying fabulous sums to people who got in on the ground floor, or are you going to be content with paying them what they paid for it? I remember that when Mr. Lulu Harcourt was Colonial Secretary, a long time ago, he prevented people who settled in Kenya from having an absolute title in their land, but allowed them to have it on lease for 33, 66 or 99 years at an increasing rent. There was Liberalism in the world in those days. Land in Kenya was granted in some cases to settlers on what is called an improving basis; they did not get their title until
they had put in a certain amount of capital into the property. I should like to know whether these people are being compensated as they would be in England when the State goes into the market to buy land, or whether they are going to be compensated on the basis of the amount they paid for the land and what they have spent on it since?
It was a shock to me to notice that the Morris Carter Report has been received with great approval in East Africa and I fear that approval coming as it does from an old friend, Major Grogan. The real question is: when the natives get this land have the Colonial Office any idea what they are going to do with it? The tendency of the natives is to say: "Let the chief decide what use is to be made of it"; to preserve for all time and at all costs what is called the primitive form of cultivation, that is, cultivation in common, that nobody has any individual title in the land, and to shift the cultivation when one patch is worked out to another patch elsewhere. The alternative to that is to give the native a patch of land, with security of tenure. You have an illustration of both methods all over the British Empire, and absolutely the best system is in Northern Nigeria, where the land is held by the peasant from the State at a rent which varies according to the value of the land. His payment of taxes, or the rent, gives him his title to the land, and they are anxious to pay because a receipt of the tax money is their title to the land. There you have individual ownership of land coupled with State ownership, an admirable combination in my opinion.
The same system was introduced some years ago into Tanganyika, but I am afraid it has met with more difficulties. If it is right for Northern Nigeria, if natives in almost exactly a similar state of civilisation would profit by it elsewhere, the Colonial Office must make up its mind as to whether they are going to continue collective ownership, faith in the head man, a sort of Lord of the Manor idea, that the chief has sole territorial rights in the land, or to introduce the system which has worked so well in Northern Nigeria. If you are going to develop on the one line you cannot develop on the other, they are alternatives, and I cannot see why in exactly the same circumstances the method which has been
adopted in one Colony cannot be adopted m another. There is no co-ordination in things of this sort. If it is a question of an agricultural college, or agricultural education, or of trade between two Colonies and trade between the mother country, organisation and co-ordination is always brought in, but when it is a question as to how the natives are to get hold of the land and make use of it then every sort of difference and difficulty arises.
There is another little question which is analogous—the question of local taxation. I do not suppose that any Secretary of State in the last 25 years has ever considered for one moment how local taxation ought to be raised. I once for my sins went into the matter with every Colony. Every single one differed. Some did it as we do it here, some as in Australia or New Zealand, some adopted the German system or the French system, octrois round the town and taxes on every particular trade. Some must be better than others. There never has been the slightest regard paid to any sort of uniformity. What happens is that some Governor finds the streets of his capital congested with motor-cars or with garbage, and he thinks it is time to set up a local government ordinance. The Attorney-General is instructed to draft the ordinance. He has never drafted one in his life, but as he is living in Jerusalem he remembers what they did in Jamaica and he scribbles out his ordinance. Eventually it comes home to the Colonial Office for approval. The Colonial Office looks at it with some amazement, but remembers that it was planned by the man on the spot who knows what ought to be done in Jerusalem.
So you get that amazing ordinance that you have in Jerusalem to-day, a local government ordinance which combines the vices of every form of local taxation in the Empire. It also has one enormous benefit. It seems that they read my book on Palestine, and the communal representation which used to be part of their local government has been wiped out, and you get a system of gerrymandered constituencies so that the minority can have a majority on the municipal council. They jumped from the frying pan into the fire, and when the ordinance came to the Colonial Office it was not noticed. The Colonial Office said, "This comes from the man on the spot," and it went through without comment, and without
comprehension. But that is a particular instance. In general you do not have any sort of co-ordination.
A few words on a subject which is very dear to my heart, although it always arouses jeers. Why not adopt a method of local taxation which is universal in the intelligent parts of the British Empire, in Canada, in Australia, New Zealand and even in South Africa. It raises money from local taxation sometimes exclusively on land value and sometimes on land value plus building value, that is to say on the capital value and not on the annual value. Land has to pay the full tax whether used or not. That system was adopted in one wild moment in Kenya, in Nairobi and in Mombasa, where the South African system prevails. There was a man, I think his name was Fiddes, who made a report on local taxation in Kenya, in which he described that form of taxation. It is also to be found in the Fijis, but nowhere else. When you get to Ceylon, or Lagos, you find the most awful congestion in the slums and the most awful speculation in land values outside. At the moment the worst speculation in the world is in the Secretary of State's pet Colony of Palestine, where prices have risen beyond the dreams of avarice in the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman knows that they have in their new ordinance taken from Tel Aviv the power which was possessed before to levy rates on land value.

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite definite that the right hon. Gentleman cannot deal with Palestine on this Vote. I gave that Ruling some time since.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was not present when you said that, Mr. Chairman, but your predecessor said the other thing.

The CHAIRMAN: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Ruling now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The only thing under Vote 8—

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I ruled quite definitely that nothing connected with Palestine and nothing which would come under the heading of the Middle Eastern Department of the Colonial Office can be discussed on Vote 8.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You were not present earlier when your predecessor was in the Chair, but perhaps you will refresh your memory by looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT to see what took place earlier. I was hopeful that when I found the Secretary of State and myself in agreement for once on the defence of Palestine, we might have an opportunity of discussing it. But may I deal with Cyprus, and will the Committee imagine that Cyprus is Palestine?

The CHAIRMAN: No. I cannot allow that. I think I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to observe the decencies of Debate.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: There was a discussion, Mr. Chairman, when your Deputy was in the Chair, during which the Secretary of State pressed that the question of Palestine might be discussed, not as regards those matters which we are voting now, but as regards his salary and the general administration of Palestine, and the Ruling was then given that matters not coming specifically within Vote 9, but dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's general administration of Palestine, we might discuss. I believe the Secretary of State asked that that Ruling might be given, and it was given.

The CHAIRMAN: The point was raised specially, and I gave a definite Ruling on the subject. I have gone into the matter very carefully, and from numerous precedents it is quite clear that where there is a special sub-department of the Secretary of State's Department that sub-department and matters coming under it cannot be discussed on a Vote which includes the Secretary of State's salary, but only on the particular Vote which deals with that sub-department.

Sir S. CRIPPS: For our guidance will you state, if in future a general discussion is required upon the administration of the Colonial Office, whether it will be necessary to ask to have all the different Votes put down in order that the discussion may take place?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not called upon to answer that question now, but there is a Ruling which I looked up to-night, and which refers to a somewhat different state of affairs, on the first night on which the Secretary of State's salary was discussed, when a number of Votes were put on the Order Paper. It is quite clear
that there is only one Vote down to-night, and the discussion must be defined to that one.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is rather a far-reaching Ruling. In Vote 9 there are references to grants-in-aid of local revenue, including Cyprus and Nyasaland and Somaliland, St. Helena, British Guiana, etc. Does the Ruling mean that we may not discuss anything connected with Cyprus or Nyasaland? It is rather a dangerous Ruling if it is meant to apply, to everything. Hong Kong University comes under other grants.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss a particular matter which I have ruled is out of order. I have tried to make clear what the Rule is. If it is a subject of a separate Department, and that Department is not under this Vote, it cannot be discussed. Obviously, nothing which is specially mentioned in Vote 9 can be discussed on Vote 8.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not know which are separate Departments. I take it that the Western Pacific High Commission is not a separate Department I will not proceed with that question, because I am certain that it is not for me to bother about Rulings. I want to deal with certain general principles in the Colonial Office Vote. I have mentioned the question of representative government and the question of education, and whether we want people to be educated to be better servants or to be their own masters. I have dealt with the question of local taxation and of co-ordination in the minor laws affecting various Colonies. The main question to which I would revert, however, is this. While I hold that it is not the duty of the Colonial Secretary to be a bagman, I think that it is his business to look after, first and foremost, the supreme interests of justice. Directly you go into all this question of tariffs, protection and quotas for this and that industry, finding markets for so-and-so, protecting some industries and not others; directly you are guided not by the interest of the native but by the interest of the British exporter or manufacturer, then your policy is diametrically opposed to the interests of the natives of the Colonies.
Take these tariffs which we have been putting on. The natives are extra-
ordinarily poor. If you have a tariff for the prohibition of Japanese goods—on anything of the very few things that the native uses—you are acting in the interests of some manufacturer in this country. If you want, as I want, to see British rule endure in these countries: if you want to see a government, unlike the exploiting governments of Europe. really devoted to the interests of the native, then you must always keep an eye upon the native interest first. Take the question of the native exports from the West Coast. If you lay down that they must export their palm kernels or palm oil to Great Britain, if you confine their market to a smaller market, then they will obviously get a smaller price. If, on the other hand, you restrict their buying of goods to goods that come from Great Britain, you restrict their liberty. If you purport to do that in the interests of the natives themselves you may be mistaken, but you have your justification. If. however, you do it in the interests of the home taxpayer and not of the native, then you are breaking with a fine Colonial Office tradition and going into a rut that will lead you into the exploitation that we have seen in the Congo, certainly in German East Africa, and to a certain extent in the French Colonial Empire. One of our finest traditions is that in the past we have governed all these subject peoples in their own interests. Do not let it be said that, now that we have become more economically and nationally conscious, we have forgotten the principles of the Colonial Office in the past and adopted the attitude of the bagman.

9.29 p.m.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: We have listened to a very long lecture by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I agree with him in one respect—that we should leave it to the man on the spot.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I never said that. I said "Never leave it to the man on the spot."

Sir E. CAMPBELL: The right hon. and gallant Member had evidently been talking so long that he had forgotten where he started. Some of us who were waiting to speak after him have not yet forgotten. I wish to travel a good distance and to talk on another topic, and that is the question of the Far East and rubber. Some few years ago I was
one of those—I think, perhaps, the principal Member of the Conservative party as it then was—who favoured the removal of the Stevenson restriction scheme, of which I had disapproved from its inception and even when it was suggested, because I disapproved of our starting in our Colonies a scheme which was not to be adopted at the same time by our great competitors the Dutch. The Stevenson restriction scheme, in fact, eventually proved of benefit to the Dutch and a detriment to ourselves, and I was therefore very pleased when it came to a conclusion.
Not so very long ago we had rubber of about 2d. a pound; shortly after it was as high as 4s. a pound, and it was certain that, although some of the estates and some of the natives were carrying on, there was no idea of rubber ever being profitable at anything like that price. Restriction, therefore, if it could be brought in with all parties taking a hand, was the only hope for an improvement in the situation. Fortunately, those interested in rubber, the British, the Dutch and the native planters, got together and formulated a scheme. They then came to the governments of their respective countries, inviting them to give their agreements legal form. I am glad to say that that legal form was given both in this country and in the Dutch East Indies.
We have now a scheme which, from what I can see, is likely to be of great benefit to all concerned—the planters, whether European or native, the merchants and those who want a good, steady investment. Up to a few years ago it was nothing but speculation. One day it was high and one day it was low, and anybody who has been in business, as I have, or a planter, as also I have, knows that that is very bad business indeed. A great deal of the scheme and a great deal of its success is due to my right hon. Friend. Even when he was away on his recent tour and was ill, he was still keeping in touch with affairs in this country, and I believe he kept a special eye on the suggested rubber scheme. I understand from my friends in the City that they are very pleased indeed with the scheme, and that they think that, with good will on all sides, it may prove very beneficial to all concerned.
In conclusion, may I say that we are very fortunate in having a Colonial
Secretary who has the respect of people in all our overseas Colonies, in whatever position they may be, both in the high and in the low ranks. I am sure that we appreciate the work he is doing for us. In this House especially we are all very keen on our Colonies and our Dominions. Never mind on what side of the House we sit, we all feel that they are part and parcel of ourselves, and that we shall do, and intend to do, the best we can for them. As I said when I started, I am a great believer in leaving as much as possible to those on the spot. During the 21 years that I was out in the East, I used to object to getting letters from the Foreign Office laying down policy on things about which they knew nothing whatever. I am glad to say, however, that in these days Colonial Secretaries move about the world and into our Colonies and Dominions get in touch with the men on the spot, and are therefore better able to know what is going on.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It will be agreed that the discussion this afternoon has been stimulating and beneficial to all who are interested in Colonial problems. It is sometimes argued that the Labour party have no interest in Empire problems, but I think that in recent years we have succeeded in showing that, whether our views be orthodox or unorthodox and probably they are regarded as the latter by hon. Members opposite, we have at any rate definite views upon these problems. Unfortunately, when we advance arguments in support of our views, we discern traces of resentment on the part of hon. Members opposite at certain of the criticisms which we feel called upon to offer in connection with these matters. I want on this occasion to make clear our view that the more remote a governed area is from London, the more vigilant are we called upon to be in regard to its affairs.
A personal reference has been made in the course of this discussion to one whom I hold in the highest respect and since he cannot speak for himself here I propose to say something on his behalf. What I regarded as a very slighting reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) to Archdeacon Owen. If I remember aright, the right hon.
Gentleman himself on a previous occasion also made some reference to Archdeacon Owen. If my recollection is at fault in that respect I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman in advance. Certainly someone speaking from the benches opposite said that it was the primary duty of those who belonged to the Church to attend to church matters. But I noticed to-day that when the right hon. Gentleman desired some support with regard to what is happening at Kakemega, he did not hesitate to quote the words of a bishop. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman having done so, and perhaps an archdeacon is regarded as being "below the salt" as compared with a bishop. But if the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to call in evidence a bishop who has paid a fleeting visit to this area surely we are entitled to call in evidence an archdeacon who lives in the area and is closely acquainted with the daily life of its inhabitants. I say this because of what I look upon as the particularly offensive reference made to Archdeacon Owen by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle, to whom I gave notice that I was going to make these remarks. I consider that Archdeacon Owen is doing his Christian duty in pleading for what he regards as the rights of the natives of that area. If he failed to bear testimony to the elementary rights of those people, then I should regard him as failing in his duty. I do not regard Archdeacon Owen as requiring any special defence in reference to the work which he has done in the past.
I turn now to the subject of land in Kenya. My hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) has already spoken on this subject and we are wholly in accord with the views expressed by him. On more than one occasion previously, we called attention to the appointment of the Morris Carter Commission and we then said definitely that we were not going to be committed in advance to anything which that Commission might recommend. That was not to say that we were rejecting in advance and in toto all their findings. We were guarding ourselves against being committed in advance to recommendations without a full and free opportunity of considering those recommendations. I call the attention of the Committee to the argument, as they
term it, Which the Commission lays down as the basis of its report:
It is a proper function of Government to secure the development of land to the best advantage. While private rights are recognised, a power of intervention is commonly preserved to the Crown by means of land acquisition acts and similar legislation in order that the power of Government to secure a proper development should not be impaired.
Having laid down that proposition, the Commission proceeded to state:
If therefore the possession of large undeveloped tracts of land by any tribe, person or class is prejudicial to the welfare and development of a country, it would be a proper exercise of the function of Government, when it has armed itself with the necessary powers, to intervene and adjust else matter. The just compensation is for the extent of the true loss sustained and it would defeat the whole purpose of the action if it were held that for every piece of land taken an equal piece must be added.
I am not prepared to subscribe to that opening chapter of the Commission's report and certainly not to the second paragraph which I have quoted. But if that principle is to be applied even as they have stated it, I want to say that Government equally has the right to withdraw from white settlers land which is occupied by them, if the claim is to be made that land ought to he withdrawn from native settlers. Paragraph 485 of the report states:
It is of the utmost importance that the settlement with the Kikuyu should be definite and final and that when these recommendations have been carried out, the matter of their post grievances should never again he reopened. If finality is not secured, our labour and those of many officers who have been working at the problem for many Years will have been in vain. It is absolutely essential for the peaceful administration of the Kikuyu that these grievances should be finally put to rest. Unless we are sure that this will be done, we shall regret having set our signatures to this report.
I say, frankly, and I think I am speaking for all my colleagues, that we refuse to accept the suggestion contained in this report as the final word on this question. It is far from being the final word and I wish the right hon. Gentleman to under-stand that we are not committed to the full implications of the report. It is not final or irrevocable and we are not committed to the Government's suggestions in the matter.
I turn from that subject to the question of the Kakamega goldfield. I am
not sure that it would not be possible to argue that the amendment of the Native Lands Ordinance is a breach of faith with the people. I do not dwell upon that question, though I entertain that view myself. May I say in passing, that if the right hon. Gentleman is able to assure us that the situation in this goldfield is not as bad as it was originally represented to be no one will be more delighted than those who sit on these benches. We shall be glad to learn, if it be the case, that the situation is not as bad as we were led to believe.
However good may be the condition of affairs, even now I would like to put the proposition that the removal of natives from the areas they occupy should be accompanied by the provision of land equal in area, value and suitability. It is easy to give them land elsewhere, but the alternative land offered may not be of the same productivity nor of the same suitability. There may not be an adequate water supply it may be fly infested or there may be mosquitoes. Therefore, although the land may be equal in area, it may be for practical purposes either useless and poor compensation or no compensation at all. So far as gold is discovered and extracted from these areas, I should suggest, and I think my colleagues would agree with me, that there ought to be a levy on it and the proceeds made available for purposes of native welfare. If there is to be cornpensation—I am speaking for myself on this point—£10 an acre would be regarded as fairly generous, but I am not sure that monetary compensation is the right form of compensation to give. We know what happens when these people get sums of money which they are not very well able to control; it is soon gone, and, having lost their wealth, they are driven into the mines and so on to work almost for nothing. It would be much better if compensation were given in land and kind rather than in money. Better money compensation, however, than no compensation at all.
My hon. Friend made the third point that we are not at all satisfied that the vital services of labour, education, and health are stimulated as adequately as they ought to be. I have a feeling, although it is hard to bring it home in a sense, that in these days of economy
the effect of the economies that are being imposed has been to depreciate the status of those in charge of labour services as compared with the others. If that be not the case, I shall be glad to hear it. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree that in the speech he made this afternoon, in which I found many points which were arresting in their interest, his review was a review of his economic policy only. Naturally, knowing the history of the right hon. Gentleman in politics, I could not expect him to do other than speak very buoyantly of quotas and preferences, which are his special hobby horse. He spoke of his economic policy, but he said nothing of his political policy. I want to speak now of the political policy which governs his Department. We take our stand, and I think we should still want to take it, on the declaration made by the Duke of Devonshire some years ago that in the relations between ourselves and these areas our paramount interest must be the well-being of the natives. Hon. Members opposite take a different view of Empire from my view, but I think I should be justified in laying down as a proposition that we have no right to demand and exercise dominion over the lives of other people in other parts of the world unless, as a consequence, we can guarantee to them an adequate opportunity to march to the same measure of freedom as we ourselves enjoy. That is a fair proposition to lay down. It certainly embodies the faith I entertain and the attitude of mind I adopt towards native problems. Freedom which is good for us ought to be equally good for the native peoples. I know that they cannot get it as quickly as many of us would like, but we ought to have an assurance that they are marching towards it.
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is going in the right direction. I will take two subjects bearing upon the right hon. Gentleman's political policy within the Empire and will refer first to Malta. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman go out of his way unnecessarily this afternoon to make a rather offensive reference to, the suppressed Government of Malta. I did not regard it as necessary to his argument, but obviously it is very present in his mind still. I may, therefore, perhaps be permitted to refer to the point. The right
hon. Gentleman took certain action in regard to Malta on the 2nd November, 1933, and on 3rd November he thought it necessary—I do not complain of it—to communicate to the "Times" the reasons for the action which he had taken. He cited in support of.his action six or seven examples of what he regarded as examples of bad or irresponsible government in Malta. I take it that I am justified in making the deduction that the right hon. Gentleman took the seven examples that suited him best and that illustrated his point. I will take the seven examples seriatim to see how far he is justified in his action. I will quote from the "Times":
The following examples are cited as an illustration of the nature and extent of the acts to which His Majesty's Government take exception: (1) The provisions of the Constitution confining to Maltese and English the languages taught in elementary schools have been evaded by the establishment at the public expense of special classes in secondary schools for children of elementary school status.
I am told that, in point of fact, these special classes were held in secondary schools largely because of increasing congestion in the Lyceum. These children were sent to special classes in the secondary schools in order to meet the increasing demands upon the. Lyceum. The second point was this:
A knowledge. of Italian had been made a compulsory qualification for admission to various classes and courses of technical instruction in Malta; and has even been insisted on in the.case of students who are being sent for training to the United Kingdom.
Let me take the first point. As a matter of fact, that is strictly in accord with the Malta Constitution. There is no violation of the Constitution in that. There was a limitation, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman himself, by Letters Patent issued in April, 1932, but that limitation only referred to children in elementary schools. It had nothing at all to do with technical instruction, and so, if it be true that these courses were being arranged in respect of technical classes, they were still acting not outside the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's own action officially taken in April, 1932, yet the right hon. Gentleman cites that as evidence of a refractory nature on the part of the Government of Malta. The third point is this:
Elementary school teachers are being sent in increasing numbers to Italy for training.
That is strictly true, but I am told that only 10 teachers were sent, and those 10 teachers who were sent to Italy to learn Italian had already been in England for two years for training here. Granting that they have been sent to Italy—that is not denied—there were only 10 of them, and they had already been to England for two years' training, so that presumably they had already acquired their English qualification. What else is relevant in this matter? Teachers, after all, must not vegetate. They are entitled to entertain ambitions, and if a teacher wants to teach in a secondary school or a university in Malta, he will find there that Italian is an obligatory subject. If, therefore, a teacher wants to become a teacher at a secondary school or a university, and to be a proficient teacher, it is natural for him to desire to acquire proficiency in one of the languages which is compulsory there. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot argue that that is an offence. I will now take No. 4, which says:
The Minister for Public Instruction has declared in the Legislature that he is considering amending the law regarding compulsory attendance in the schools with the object of nullifying the policy of His Majesty's Government.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman implies that those last words —"with the object of nullifying the policy of His Majesty's Government"—are quoted words, or whether they are words used by himself to interpret the policy of the Minister. It is very important. For instance, I might say that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to implement the Morris Carter Report, so as to serve the interests of the landlords of Kenya. He is prepared to implement that report, but the later words are mine, not his. It is, therefore, important that we should know whether the Minister used these very words which are used in item No. 4 of the right hon. Gentleman's letter. But suppose it is true. Not one Bill was introduced into the Malta Assembly to give effect to it. The Minister may have said he intended to deal with the matter, but not a Bill was introduced, and so, however much he may have entertained the intention of doing it, no effect was given to it by the introduction of a Bill. Point No. 5 was this:
Italian has been introduced as a compulsory subject of examination for minor Government posts, generally filled by persons possessing only elementary educa-
tion, thus closing this avenue of employment to Maltese who do not know Italian.
No. 6 is as follows:
Maltese has been removed as a subject of examination for a number of posts in the Government service.
As I understand it, the position is this, that a knowledge of Italian is essential if you are going to do anything at all in the courts, because I believe the language of the courts is Italian. English may be increasingly used, but Italian is used in the Maltese courts, and, therefore, giving, if you like, the fullest possible benefit to the alleged claims of the right hon. Gentleman, I say that what I have said in defence of the Maltese is such as to show that their offence does not justify this tremendous action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
Let me take this last point, which is interesting because of the obvious reference which the right hon. Gentleman made to-night to the last Maltese Government, when he said that they had done nothing in regard to agriculture and so on, that they had not done what he is now starting to do in Malta. Let us grant that. In how many other parts under the right hon. Gentleman's Department has that particular action with regard to agriculture not been taken? There may be plenty of parts in the Empire where this experiment may be in its initial stages, but grant that it has not been done before, and that the right hon. Gentleman has started it. I give him all credit for it, but the absence of that action is no adequate reason for withholding self-government from these people. Take the question of reckless expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has never replied, so far as I know, to the very damaging statement of Sir Ugo Mifsud, an ex-Prime Minister, in the "Times" of the 23rd November, when he said:
As regards the charge of recklessness and improvident expenditure brought against my Ministry, an impartial examination of the facts will prove that charge to be entirely unsupported. The official figures compiled by the Malta Treasurer show an excess balance of £161,301 on 30th September, 1933, and this figure is larger than any of the balances left over in the previous two years for which the Provincial Government was responsible, which were respectively £61,773 on 30th September, 1931, and £117,868 on 30th September, 1932. The excess of expenditure referred to in the Colonial Office statement represented in part
a sum of £40,000 consisting of 're-votes' or commitments undertaken by the past Administration which fell due this year. The remainder was spent in works of public utility and for the relief of unemployment. Thus £250,000 was spent on the new telephone installation, £18,000 for the purchase of a new turbo-alternator for the electric works, £13,000 in road improvements, £7,000 in agricultural development, and the remaining £72,000 in extraordinary non-recurrent works for the relief of unemployment, and so on.
After all, we are dealing with a population living in an area not larger than the Isle of Wight, a population, I think, of 230,000, which is dealing with a problem of crisis as we have had to do in this country. The right hon. Gentleman, I submit in all sincerity, is not entitled to take this strenuous and stringent action in regard to these people because they failed to balance their budget.
May I take one last point? The right hon. Gentleman will controvert me if what I say is not correct. There has never been since 1921 any evidence at all of what the right hon. Gentleman can fairly call disloyalty. These people have worked together in an orderly way, they have worked patiently, and if I wanted proof of that, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a speech made, not by a friend of mine, but by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) in 1930 or 1931 in which the right hon. Gentleman paid a glowing tribute to the effectiveness with which these people had conducted their government themselves. Really, the right hon. Gentleman has to prove what it was that made him take that action. His case does not rest on these seven charges. I am told that, having accused this Government of reckless expenditure, when he took over, one of the first things done was to increase the salaries of the people in charge of the place.
Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to take the action he has taken? I am no lawyer, and I do not pretend to be one, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will read page 201 of the Letters Patent passed under the Great Seal in 1921, and read down on that page in the report of the Malta Royal Commission he will find that in taking this action he had to prove that there were grave emergency and danger to the Government. Has he proved it? He has not proved his seven points. He
cannot justify his case on the basis of the seven points. But, even if he could, that is not a proof of emergency or that he was called upon to subordinate the proper Government. This is a part, I fear, of the general policy that has actuated the right hon. Gentleman. I am not attributing the Newfoundland business to him, but it is an incident in government which, side by side with this, is of some importance rind significance. The right hon. Gentleman has issued ordinances dealing with the question of sedition on the Gold Coast. I have seen a report from Sir Samuel Wilson, who has recently returned from Malaya, laying down propositions which he regards as axiomatic, but which I would speedily repudiate.
These things raise a simple issue. What is the policy behind the right hon. Gentleman's work at the Colonial Office? I say quite categorically to him that he may desire keenly to improve trade conditions, but I am bound to say that in that matter there was very little mention of the natives this afternoon. He was mainly concerned with Britain's wellbeing and people. Of course, improving trade relations between us and them has a consequential effect on them, but it is not our business—and here I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—however much we may want to improve relations in trade, to divert trade from other areas to us if thereby it involves some ill to the people of those areas. The paramount interest for us must be the welfare of the natives. I look with mistrust on this policy; I do not like it. I consider it is deliberately and of set purpose reactionary in terms of political action, and I submit that the same thing is to be found in the Morris Carter report as is found in Malta, in Malaya, in Fiji and on the Gold Coast. The right hon. Gentleman speaks in terms of preference here. There is one preference that he will not entertain, and that is a preference for right and liberty for the people of the areas he governs.

10.13 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: After the very extraordinary speech to -which we have just listened, I am glad indeed that my policy does not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I should feel that there was much
wrong with it if it did. He asks what is my policy for the Colonial Empire. I appreciate that it is diametrically opposed to all for which he is arguing, because my aim is to keep the British Empire British, and that if any such desire were present in his mind he could not have made the amazing statements he did about Malta, with which I will deal before I sit down. He said there was nothing in my speech about the natives and that all that I was interested in was what could be done for this country. I have never heard a more gross misrepresentation. I spoke of the efforts which had been made to get better sales for the crops—grown by whom? Grown by the natives. The Labour party, with the happy knack they have of disclosing a policy in advance, have explained to an expectant Colonial Empire that if ever they are returned to power against the first thing they will do will be to abolish the whole system of preferences. No doubt that will be very popular indeed with the millions of natives throughout the Colonial Empire who to-day are dependent for their markets on the security given to them by this policy as it is operating in this country, in the Dominions and in India.
Take all the great basic crops—cocoa, copra, ground nuts and so on. Who does he suppose are the producers of those crops? Not the millionaires in this country, but the natives out there. I frankly admit that I take the keenest interest in the development of native production and marketing. The whole of the Colonial Service is frightfully keen about it, because they know that upon the success of native production and native marketing depends not only the livelihood of the natives but all the social services. All this development of marketing and of production in every Colony of the British Empire is done entirely in the interest of the natives. Yet the hon. Gentleman said there was not a word about natives or the interests of natives in my speech from start to finish. I shall be fairly content, when the time comes, to take the verdict on the issue of whether the economic policy which we have embarked upon, and which has for the first time given a chance to these native producers throughout the Empire is likely to be more to their benefit than a policy which would sacrifice them to world competition.
The rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech was on a similar level. He raised two particular points abort the natives in the mining areas. An area of 1,500 acres has been added in Kavirondo not because any question is likely to arise of removing natives, since it is extremely improbable that any will have to be removed, but because it was thought wise that this extra land should be added in case that very improbable event should take place. Then the hon. Gentleman did not like the idea of the native getting compensation in cash for his land. I would point out that the native has not been turned off the land. This is a cash compensation for a native who is still on his land and working his land but who suffers some deprivation of his crops. It is no good giving such a mail more land miles and miles away. He has plenty of land and what he wants is compensation for any disturbance to his crops. He is given compensation on a generous scale and would be the very first person to object forcibly if we said that instead of paying compensation in cash we would provide extra land 50 miles away, which would not be of the faintest use to him. That would not be my idea of fair compensation.
Next I come to the much more considered and weighed arguments which were advanced by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). In the first place, let me give the hon. Member for Rothwell an assurance about the Kikuyu. He said he hoped they would get compensation for mining damage. I think he is under a misapprehension there, because no mining goes on in Kikuyu country. It is confined to the Kavirondo and Masai areas and therefore there is no question of compensation in the Kikuyu area. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that action ought not to be taken on the report until this House had had an opportunity of discussion. That is quite reasonable and we have discussed it today, but I do not follow him in his suggestion that the Government did something wrong in stating in a White Paper their considered view on this subject. I should have thought that that was enormously for the convenience of the House; indeed everybody who has discussed this subject to-day has not had to wait for my
speech but has known for a good many weeks the Government's view of the report. There has been a great measure of agreement in regard to the report.
The immediate action which is being taken is with regard to mining leases in order that, before any leases are granted, it may be possible for the Government of Kenya to frame them in what the Morris Carter Commission thought to be the fairest and most convenient form. That step ought to be taken at once. Another step which is being taken at once is a declaration that we accept those additions to the Reserves. I do not think that either natives or Europeans should be in doubt that we propose to make those additions. It will be a very complicated business when we come to the details of making amendments on the lines suggested by the commission, and of dividing the work as between the Land Trust Board and the Government, in the way which I indicated in my speech. I was glad to note that the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition was in complete accord with the course which the commission laid down as to the functions of the Land Trust Board and the Government. Being in agreement on that, what we have now to do is merely a question of drafting, to get the ordinance into the form which we desire.
Another question of principle which has been raised in the Debate is whether the board should sit in London or not. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead put one view, while everybody else who spoke took another. It does not take very long for one to make up one's mind on this matter, because the arguments can be stated in a comparatively narrow compass. I stated in my opening speech the grounds on which the argument for a London board were, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, constitutionally and practically unacceptable. I do not want to repeat the argument, but it carried weight with everybody who has spoken during the Debate. It is a view which we formed after very careful consideration. A further question which was independently raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Rothwell, is quite new.
It was whether we should reopen all the old pledges of 30 years standing as regards the White Highlands. The Commission, in making their recommendations to satisfy native requirements, whether they be the requirements of claims as of right, or whether they be the requirements for future economic development, have not been in the least fettered by the question of the Highlands. It was not a question of their possibly being inclined to make further recommendations if more land were available. The question of the Highlands did not come in; there is ample land, as the Commission have indicated, for making the additions which they think are necessary, both from a legal and equitable point of view and from the point of view of economic development, and they have proceeded, as they were directed to do, to define the Highlands in their proper area, having regard to all the pledges which have been given in the past.
The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is that we shoul4 do something quite different—that we should say we were going to reopen the whole policy with regard to the Highlands. We say that this particular area in Kenya should now be delimited, and delimited, as I have explained to the House, with a smaller area than those which have previously been put forward for consideration from time to time by different committees and other bodies. At any rate, I think that no one would say that the Commission have laid down an unduly liberal boundary for the Highlands. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that we should reopen the whole policy. That. is an entirely novel and, I think, really an amazing suggestion. What is the history of this matter? Right back in 1905, or earlier—in the very earliest days in Kenya —this area of the Highlands was set aside for white settlement. That was affirmed in the despatches which have been quoted, and it has never been called in question. Above all, it was never called in question by the Labour Government. The Pass-field Declaration—Lord Passfield's Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa (Command No. 3573 of 1930), the Magna Charta of native policy to which the hon. Gentleman referred—made it clear that there was no question of going back on the decision come to by Lord Elgin in 1908, and confirmed by the White.
Paper of 1923, with regard to the restriction of agricultural land sales in the so-called Highlands of Kenya to persons of European descent. That has never been called in question. What is now suggested is that we should reopen this policy of 30 years, and throw into the melting pot again the whole question of the Highlands. Do hon. Members who make that suggestion visualise the implications which would follow from its adoption? His Majesty's Government could not countenance the idea for a moment; they would regard it as being as much a breach of faith as the taking of a tract away from the reserves; but that suggestion is made at the moment when these enormous tracts are being added to the native reserves, and when an attempt is being made to bring about certainty of tenure. I cannot conceive of any action that would be more unfortunate.
The question about the "Discovery" Committee was raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) and another hon. Member. The position can be very shortly stated. This fund was raised by taxation. It is talked about by some as if it was a kind of trust fund founded by voluntary subscription. It is nothing of the kind. It is the proceeds of taxation levied in a British Colony by means of export duties and to a small extent by means of licences. It has always been devoted to two purposes. It has been devoted towards defraying the cost of the Falklands Dependencies. In respect of Dependency expenditure, my hon. Friend explained to me afterwards that he was under a complete misapprehension. He thought that this defraying of the cost of these Dependencies out of the fund was something new. It has always been done. The figure of £9,000 to which he referred is not a new figure, but is the figure which was assessed in 1926 and earlier and which has been paid ever since. Of course, the cost of these Dependencies ought to come out of the proceeds of the local taxation from which the fund was formed. It is proper that in the future, as in the past, we should ensure that that cost is so met.

Major MILNER: Was that permissible under the original Ordinance?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

Major MILNER: If the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory I think he will find that he is wrong.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman expresses a very firm opinion. I do not express an opinion in this House without verification. I was once a lawyer, though I do not profess to have the slightest legal knowledge. I am advised that it is perfectly proper. It has been done all along. It was done by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government and it has never been questioned at all. The fund is also being applied for sending out the "Discovery" upon another voyage. There is no reason why the "Discovery" should not go out on a second voyage. We cannot decide until the "Discovery" returns and we see what progress has been made and what remains to be done whether further money out of that fund should go on being spent on this particular kind of research, or whether, as my hon. Friend says, if it be thought by those most competent to decide that this form of research has really exhausted its utility, we ought, not to use some of it in another kind of research. That will have to be decided some time in the future when we know further what has happened. I do not think it would be justifiable to go on spending a research fund on research which most people thought had exhausted its utility, but that question does not arise now.
A suggestion about Mr. Darnley has been raised and I must answer it. Mr. Darnley ceased to be a member of the Colonial Office. A certain post became redundant and it had to be decided which member of the staff in the Colonial Office was the person who was, I will not say, least competent—all Government Departments are competent—but one has to decide that one must keep the most able people and the person who is not as competent as others is the person who has to retire. In those circumstances Mr. Darnley retired when the post became redundant. It has always been the practice that a member of the Colonial Office should be the Chairman of this Committee. When Mr. Darnley's services at the Colonial Office came to an end, I had to appoint another chairman of the fund. It was an important duty, and I thought that the proper thing to do was to
appoint the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who is the chairman of some of the largest committees in the Colonial Office. It has been suggested that Mr. Darnley ought still to be on the committee. Again, I am sorry that this point has been raised. It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether Mr. Darnley is on the committee or not. As the question was raised, I asked the Under-Secretary of State to make inquiries as to whether it would be acceptable to other members of the committee that Mr. Darnley should be added again to the committee as a member. He reported to me that he had sounded the committee and that he would not be acceptable. I have had to say that because the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, and I always want to be perfectly frank with the Committee. I am rather sorry that it was raised.

Major MILNER: I have not raised any question about his continued membership of the committee. That was raised in another place.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At any rate, that is the whole story about it.
I come, finally, to the amazing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) dealing with Malta. I am absolutely unrepentant as regards the action which His Majesty's Government took in Malta. It was a little surprising that this diatribe about suspending the Constitution in Malta should come from Members of the late Government which suspended the Constitution of Malta for two years. Doubtless the hon. Member has forgotten that incident in his past career. The Constitution of Malta was suspended because it was perfectly plain that Ministers, in every way they could, were defying the policy which Parliament unanimously laid down should be followed in Malta. They were deliberately, in every way they could, trying to suppress not only the English language, but the Maltese language as well—a most scandalous performance in a British colony and a great fortress. Of course, being ingenious people, they tried where they could, to keep within the letter of the law, but I am not quite sure that they always succeeded. As a matter of fact, they boasted that it was their ambition to question, by every means in their power, the orders of this House
and the policy which this House and Parliament generally had unanimously endorsed. They sent elementary school teachers to be trained in Italy. Why should they go to be trained in Italy? Italian is not taught in the elementary schools in Malta. They were never going to teach Italian. They were not sent there to learn anything of use to them in their training. We all know the reasons why they were sent.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question with regard to the words which he quoted and which, he said, were. not in inverted commas. I have not the paper before me, but the words in substance were an endeavour to get round the policy of the Government. As a matter of fact, I have refreshed my memory by referring for the information, and I find that those words, although not in inverted commas, were actually the words used by the Minister in his speech. Italian was to be made compulsory for every post. The man who was to be employed in scavenging the town, those who filled the cheapest jobs in the town were to be told that they would have to learn Italian. Really, that is most absurd in a British Colony, and I am amazed that the hon. Member should defend action of that kind. As for their financial policy, I am not concerned with what has been said, but they were busily engaged in dissipating a surplus which had been sedulously accumulated in the past. and were committing themselves to an expenditure on a scale which I have no doubt would be sympathetically regarded by the hon. Member in view of the course which he pursued up to the crisis in 1931, but which certainly would not be of any great benefit to Malta. I stand absolutely by what I have said about that.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: What about your conservative predecessor?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He is not present, but I have every reason to know that he is in complete agreement with the policy which has been pursued, and if we had not taken the steps we took in Malta, a British colony and a British fortress, we should have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. That is all I desire to say except one other thing. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has thought it desirable to charge me not with mis-
conduct but with some indelicacy because a Colony presented me with my portrait.I do not wish to say anything in my defence. I am fairly well known in this House, and I am perfectly content to leave my honour and reputation with them.

10.43 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I have sat here all through the Debate and listened to most of the speeches, and I hope hon. Members will bear with me for a few moments while I put a matter before the Committee which greatly concerns my constituency and Lancashire as a whole. It is the position of West Africa. The trade of West Africa has seriously declined and the natives there are unable to buy our textile and other products largely because the trade in palm kernel oil has been destroyed, first by the removal of the 10 per cent. duty on whale oil in the agreement we made with Norway, and, secondly, by the imposition of a fax of 29s. on palm kernels, which is equivalent to a tax of £3 per ton export tax on palm kernel oil, which has to compete with the whale oil from Norway. The result is that the West African native is unable to buy Lancashire cotton goods. I ask the Colonial Secretary if he can see his way to find some other method of raising revenue instead of putting an export duty upon the product of the West African native which has to compete with Norwegian whale oil. May I remind him that in my native city, Liverpool, 14 firms which were largely engaged in the West African trade has gone into bankruptcy? Will my right hon. Friend not consider, therefore, that it is of paramount importance to raise the purchasing power of the native, and to look into the operations of the great combines, or their methods, in West Africa? If he would do that I am sure that Lancashire would be grateful. We are grateful to the Government for the tax on Japanese exports into the Colonial Empire. This indicates a change of policy on the part of the Government. It has always been the aim of Britain to regard the Colonial Empire as a trusteeship. Our rule is solely in the interests of the native. As Kipling said:
If we have bound the cannibal it was only that we might feed him with better food. If we have bound the fathers it was only that we might raise their children to a higher seat.
Those sentiments were very good in the palmy days of our prosperity, but surely
the time has come when the whole of the Empire should work for the advancement of the native and at the same time work for the advancement of this country. Such a policy would aid employment here and in the Colonies. The Colonies are our greatest export market. If the Government would put into operation the great vision of a great and well-known son of the Empire and adopt a Customs union of the whole of the Colonial Empire, I am sure that we would find a great deal more trade. America has discovered that. The Customs union between America and Porto Rico has resulted in a great advance in that American colony. America gets 31,000,000 dollars, or 91 per cent. of the trade, whereas our Colonial policy in the past has been like that of Doctor Barnardo's Homes—the ever-open door for every country's peoples. The time has come to bring more of the Empire's trade to the British people throughout the whole of the countries under the British flag.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I too have had a long day here. I heard the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) complaining somewhat bitterly that there were very few Members supporting the Government in the House when he began his speech. I took the trouble to count them, and I found that there were 25 per cent, more supporters of the Government than there were of the Opposition. [HON. Members: "No!"] I counted the numbers at the time. There were 10 of us and eight of you. What did happen, I am sorry to say, is that a good many of our side left. I do not say that they missed a very great and informative speech, along with some peculiar ideas. I must say that I shared the indignation at the attack made on the Colonial Secretary because someone had given him his picture. I thought the attack was a very shabby business. If they had given my right hon. Friend an illuminated address would hon. Members opposite have had the same objection. I was in Mauritius not long ago. The people there are all French, and they were full of praise of the Colonial Secretary and the work that has been done for them in the island. The one thing that they fear is that they might lose the British connection. It would have been a most impolite thing to these enthusiastic
people, who desired to offer this token. of their esteem, if it had not been accepted. I am proud to think that we have a man in our ranks who is recognised in that way.
I want to speak on the question of rubber and tin, and the rubber control. The old Stevenson scheme was a mistake. I think it fixed the price much too high. I am very doubtful about the tin control. There has been litigation in one of the great mines. In some of the mines they have to keep pumping continuously at vast expense, and if the revenue is cut down the place is ruined. That matter also should be looked into.
With regard to the treatment of natives, anyone who knows anything about mining in South Africa knows that the first thing you have to do is to be good and kind to your boys. If you do not treat them as you treat your children you will lose them. The black boy has an advantage which the British working man does not possess: if he is not treated well, he will go back to his kraal and you lose your labour corps. You have to treat him tenderly, almost make a pet of him, and he will be perfect. I have had the treatment of thousands; you get them coming down rather poorly fed from the kraals, and after three months' good feeding they are thoroughly well and vigorous, and are wonderful workers. The late Sir William Raeburn told me of something he had never expected to see in his life which he saw at the building of the harbour at Durban—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of Durban, if it arises at all, will come under the Dominions Office.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am speaking, then, of something which he saw at a certain place: powerful black boys running with barrows and singing as they ran about who could carry the most. I have never seen such a thing among British workers. Another point about mining is that it, should be done near the black boy's home, because this adds greatly to his comfort and welfare, and it is a great disadvantage to a native to be carried away to a far distance. Gold mining is a clean and fine job, not like coal mining, and a very remunerative job. It is work which enormously improves the boys and raises their status. An hon. Member said that the mining conditions
were severe, and that not the least of the work is the protective work which the boys have to do. It is a great mistake to have too much of this, for it gets done in a hurry, unscientifically and at a loss. This question must be very seriously considered. One thing about which I was more delighted than about anything which I have heard was the experimental farm schools. It pleased me to think that out in those Colonial parts we have the right type of school in which the child gets trained for something along with his eductation. If we could have the same kind of thing in Uganda, the farmers would be more useful colonists and we should have a much larger number of settlers. At present the cost to the Government of Uganda relative to the population is extremely high.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £99,419, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. —[Captain Margessom]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for public works.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.0 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a simple but important question relative to local authorities. The question of the interest paid by local authorities on loans, since loans were advanced by the Public Works Loans Board, about 1921 or 1922, has been a thorny one. The hon. Gentleman will remember that during that period local authorities, for water purposes or gas or electricity development, or for other public services that are so essential to the well-being of the community, who had no access to public trustee funds were obliged to pay anywhere about 7 per cent. for loans that were advanced to them. Many of these loans were dated for a number of years and under no conditions could they be liquidated prior to the expiration of the date determined. As a result, local authorities to-day are paying anything between 5 and 7 per cent. on loans that were advanced for public services of some kind.
In reply to a question on Thursday, the hon. Gentleman intimated that not less than £89,000,000 was still owing by local authorities for money borrowed at rates in excess of 5 per cent. It is true that a goodly proportion of that sum was advanced for the purpose of housing under the 1919 Housing Act, and that to the extent that the sums were borrowed for housing purposes, all the repayments in excess of la penny rate have to be met by the Government; but many local authorities are still burdened with these huge rates of interest, which we think ought to be reduced as early us possible. It is true that within recent history the Public Works Loan Board has found ways and means of reducing the rate of interest on current and future loans, but old dated loans still current have to be met by local authorities. There was a Conversion Loan some time ago when War Loan was converted from 5, 4¾ and 4½ per cent. to 3½ per cent. Considerable sums of money were saved to the Exchequer. I have heard the Chancellor on many occasions claim a good deal of credit for that Conversion Loan. While we do not expect the Treasury to meet any deficit that may accrue between the rate of interest paid by the Public Works Loan Board and any concessions granted to local authorities, we do feel that if it
were expedient and fair to issue and carry through the conversion of War Loan, it would be equally fair to insist upon a conversion of those loans borrowed by the Public Works Loan Board for the purpose of advancing money to local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman on the spur of the moment may not be in a position to reply now. We appeal to him, however, when this further £18,000,000 is borrowed, not only to borrow it at the least possible rate of interest consistent with helping the local authorities, but to let the people who are in the habit of advancing loans to the Public Works Loan Board know that there will be a conversion of past loans, and to that extent a mitigation of the burden of the local authorities. The question is a very simple one, but it has been before the Treasury on previous occasions, and we think that it is high time that the local authorities, which were obliged to borrow money at 6, 6½ and 7 per cent., should be relieved of some of their burdens. If a compulsory conversion be the only means whereby local authorities can be relieved, we think it is high time that a compulsory conversion ought to take place. We do not want to hold up this Measure, and we only submit this to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he will take it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if it be possible consistently with the financial dignity of the country to insist upon a conversion, that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary may think it worth while to carry it through.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not realise what the hon. Gentleman was doing. I noticed that he said towards the end that he did not expect the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be able to answer his question right off, and I am inclined to think that if he attempted to do so, I should have to rule him out of order. I do not see that the question really can be raised on this Bill at all, and I could not allow a. Debate on it.

11.6 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): With your permission, Sir Dennis, I will say briefly that we have looked very carefully into this question, and we can see no possibility of meeting the hon. Member in this matter, for the simple reason that the money lent at that time at that
high rate of interest, which was the current rate at the time, we were compelled to borrow in order to have the wherewithal to lend it. In order to alleviate the burden on the local authorities, we should be compelled to bear the whole of the loss. Conversion would not be possible for those loans still outstanding, and there is no possibility of raising the money in any way except at the expense of the taxpayers. It is unfortunate for the local authorities that raised money at that time, but the greater part of it was borrowed to meet the plans under the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919, and the greater part of that burden is now borne on the Exchequer, which would be the principal beneficiary from any relief obtained. I do not think anything was raised at 7 per cent. I think 6½ per cent. was the highest rate, and only very small sums were raised at so high a rate as that.

Clause 2 (Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of local loans fund,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eyemouth Harbour loan.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.8 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the hon. Gentleman may feel disposed to make some reference, not to the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees question, where only £500 is involved, but to the losses incurred through the harbour having gone into liquidation and these various loans not being repaid, but perhaps it would be better to raise the question on the Schedule.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is too late and that the question should have been raised on Clause 2.

Clause 4 short title,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule (Loan by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the Harbours and Passing Tolls, etc., Act, 1861), agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (SPECIAL INVESTMENTS) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

COLONIAL STOCK BILL.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order [11th July] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee be read and discharged."—[Captain Margesson.]

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand that this is really a blunder, and I do not think the House ought to be asked to pass something of this sort without an explanation. I understand we are being asked to discharge an Order made as recently as last night and apparently during the night the Government have changed their mind. We ought to have some information.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): Nobody could be more willing than I am to take part in this little jest. Quite frankly, it is not a blunder, but a small tiny slip. We did not change our minds during the night, but at the last minute before the House rose. That is why it is on the Paper.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow."—[Captain Margesson.]

WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) BILL [Lords],

Order for Second Reading read.

11.12 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Very few words are needed on this Bill, which is to ratify an international convention for the preservation of whales in the high seas, and preventing the indiscriminate slaughter now going on. As it deals with the high seas, protection can only be secured by each nation which has gone into the convention taking precautions in regard to its own nationals. Therefore, we are making the necessary proposals in regard to our
whales and taking steps to impose the necessary penalties on those who break them. Opportunity is also taken to deal with the smaller matter of the protection of whalers inside our own coastal waters. In future the taking of whales will be permitted only under licence, and the convention lays down what are the conditions under which licences can be obtained. Provision is made not only for the number of whales taken and the method of capture but for the full and efficient utilisation of the products of the whale. These provisions are desired not only to protect the whales by reducing the numbers of those captured but to make more useful those that are captured.

11.15 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Though this Bill deals with mammals, it is a little bit fishy to bring it on at a quarter-past Eleven o'Clock. Still, as it refers to an international convention to which, obviously, the country has agreed, we shall take no objection to the Second Reading being considered now.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Margesson.]

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hos-
pital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1934 be approved."—[Captain. Euan Wallace.]

11.16 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Hon. Members will know that at this time of the year the Public Accounts Committee present their report to the House. In the ordinary course of proceedings we present a report in respect of last year's accounts, and in that report there is a reference to this particular point, though not in regard to these accounts; and, if I and my colleagues do not take objection or say anything about them, it is not because we feel that there is nothing to be said, but because, in a way, the accounts are still sub judice, because they have to come before the Public Accounts Committee for consideration.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1934 be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.